Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Humanities desk
< November 30 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 2 >
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.


Contents


[edit] December 1

[edit] Dan Rather

From Dan Rather:

During the presidency of Richard Nixon, critics accused Rather of biased coverage. At a Houston news conference in 1974, Nixon fielded a question from Rather, still CBS's White House correspondent, who said, "Thank you, Mr. President. Dan Rather, of CBS News. Mr. President..." The room filled with jeers and applause, prompting Nixon to joke, "Are you running for something?" Rather replied "No, sir, Mr. President. Are you?"

I don't understand the exchange. Could someone please provide context and meaning. It's bugging me... Oh, I'm British, so understand my confusion. Hammer Raccoon 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is during the Watergate, isn't it? "..Mr. President. Dan rather..." sounds like Nixon should rather not be the President. Moonwalkerwiz 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand it either. Perhaps something has been taken out? Or perhaps there was no pause after 'CBS News' and beginning 'Mr President'? Or perhaps it was his tone of voice? I'ts obvious I have not got a clue! Clio the Muse 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Dan Rather" sounds like "than rather." What would it mean to say, "Mr.President, than rather"? Moonwalkerwiz 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with his name. By that time (March 1974) Rather was widely known as a tough questioner of President Nixon. This reputation is what caused the hubbub in the crowd as he introduced himself. --Cam 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's it. The other newspeople were reacting to Rather's reputation or to the question he'd just asked and Nixon's reaction. This is unusual, so Nixon made a joke to the effect that Rather was trying to make himself popular so he could run for office. Nixon at the time had already been elected president twice and was therefore ineligible to run again, but as the Watergate scandal developed, he was trying to maintain his popularity in order to be able to retain the presidency -- just as he would also have done if he had been running for reelection. And Rather made a riposte about that. --Anonymous, 01:53 UTC, December 1.
I recall the exchange very well. Dan Rather smarted off to the President, and did not offer to Nixon the courtesy expected from a reporter speaking to the U.S. head of state. The President has more license to kid the reporter than contrariwise. He could have left off the "No, Mr. President, are you" and just asked his question. Edison 05:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I, too, remember it clearly. I despised Richard Nixon. I was active in the antiwar movement. I watched the news conference live. I remember it because I could not believe what I heard. Dan Rather was not acting correctly in terms of protocol. My perception is that Richard Nixon was trying to intimidate Rather because of his strong reporting. The mutual hostility was apparent. I always thought that White House reporters might have ideas but they certainly did not report them. The incident was embarassing for Rather and Nixon. No one won. It was so unusual I still remember it after all these years. 75Janice 20:06UTC 2 December 2006



Thank you, Edison, for that clarification. So Nixon might have said 'Any man rather than Dan'. This reminds me of a little couplet by George Wither, a seventeenth century English poet-I grow and wither, both together. Clio the Muse 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, forgive me for being dense, but Rather's riposte is what makes this memorable? If Rather's statement meant little more than "are you trying to maintain public support" then I still don't get it - isn't it obvious Nixon would want to remain popular? Is the real controversy here that the reporter would 'talk back' at all to the President? Hammer Raccoon 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, both. It's normal for him to want to remain popular, but the manner of a politician who's running for election isn't the same as one who doesn't have to worry about that (and a second-term president normally doesn't). So Rather's crack was pointing out that Nixon wasn't acting like someone who'd already won his last election. But it also showed an absence of respect that he made it. --Anon, 04:20 UTC, December 2.

Thanks all for helping clear this up for me. Hammer Raccoon 14:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign educated lawyers and the Hawaii Bar Exam

Can a foreign educated lawyer sit the Hawaii Bar Exam. I noticed that Wikipedia says that 'in many states' this is the case if they have studied three years of common law, and cites New York as an example. Is this the case in Hawaii?

Thank you

CatCantrell 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to the applicable rules can be found here. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the article mentioned "many states" rather than "all states" due to the situation in Louisiana, where neither an LLB nor a JD is sufficient. Rather, being the only civil law state a BCL is required. Otherwise I don't see why an LLB or a JD from a credible foreign university wouldn't be sufficient. Loomis 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better worded if a lawyer who attended an accredited law school in any state other than Hawaii...I think constitutional problems would arise regarding the interstate commerce clause. When I was in law school many years ago, one had to comply with all the local rules. Small states like easy bar exams for their own residents and may restrict out-of-state lawyers by requiring registering before one starts law school. I assumed the patently unfair nonsense was stopped.—

[edit] Shakespeare- out, out

Does anyone know from what shakespearean play do the words "out, out" appear. If so, what play is it, what are the lines they appear in and what do they mean? Thanks

"Out, damned spot! out, I say!" --From The Scottish Play (Act V, scene 1, line 38). JackofOz 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also from one of my favourite soliloquys in Macbeth, Act V scene 5 line 23: "Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more..." СПУТНИКCCC P 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always found this to be a good Shakespeare resource, although for some reason its search feature is having a hard time with this quote. GreatManTheory 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet II,2: "Out, out, thou strumpet Fortune! All you gods,/In general synod take away her power"
Henry IV-1 V,2: "Out, out! My lords, an please you, 'tis not so/I did beget her, all the parish knows"
Merry Wives of Windsor IV, 2: "Out, out! I'll conjure you,/I'll fortune-tell you."
Two Gentlemen of Verona II,7: "Out, out, Lucetta! that would be ill-favour'd."
Macbeth V,5: "Out, out, brief candle!/Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more."
For my money, you're looking for the Macbeth quote. dpotter 04:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It is almost certainly the 'Out, out, brief candle' speech, where Macbeth muses on the transitory and pointless nature of human existence. Clio the Muse 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Shakespeare outted quite a few people (I hope I'm not Bard for that comment). StuRat 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But who outed Shakespeare? 惑乱 分からん 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration in the UK. Late 90's

I've been trying to find a song that I am 99% sure existed. Released in the UK in the late '90s. It was a collaboration of several artists for charity - Childline comes to mind.

I have done a bit of searching but to no avail. If anyone can help - would be greatly appreciated. :)

Is it Do They Know It's Christmas?, to raise money for Ethiopian famine relief? I'm reading through Charity record. -sthomson 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably the cover of Perfect Day, each line done by a different artist or group, including Lou Reed himself, Bono, David Bowie, Elton John, Boyzone, Huey from the Fun Lovin Criminals, Tammy Wynette, Shane McGowan, Evan Dando and Tom Jones. It was for Children in Need, and released in 1997. Proto::type 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the version described above, Children in Need also released versions performed exclusively by male artists and by female artistes. All three versions were on the CiN CD. -- Arwel (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Collar Crime

Google search result (1st up) on "Red Collar Crime":>

redcollarcrime080306 (As far as we could determine, the term “red collar crime” was first used in this context by a California activist who calls himself “The Toxic Reverend. ... http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/redcollarcrime080306.htm

This could change our world and stop the war ..... a District Attorney that has won over ten reckless homicide cases against corporations is listed at the main

"No More Red Collar Crime" http://www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime

Second Google search term: "toxic reverend red collar crime"... too much information ...... but scanned and posted responses from the california Attorney General from homicide complaints filed against Pacific Lumber for the death of Earth First activist David "Gypsy" Chain are linked intoo many.\ of the returned search question.

Oh my God ......... try "toxic reverend profile". http://people.tribe.net/toxicreverend i.e. Quote from the profile page: "Every advocate needs a homicide complaint that they have filed themselves, framed and hung on their wall".


Do I hear an Amen or what ?

Is there a question in all that somewhere ? StuRat 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What?! Clarityfiend 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Question

On tonights episode of Family Guy Brian and Stewie have enlisted in the army and are going through basic training. During Brian's attempt at completeing the obstical course they played a really catchy, up beat kind of song. Anyone know the name of it? 70.254.22.143 07:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this page, the theme to the movie Stripes is playing. Here is the soundtrack listing for that movie, but there don't appear to be any actual songs on it. Confusingly, the film's IMDB entry just lists one song, by the Spinners. Or by 'song', do you mean piece of instrumental music? --Richardrj talk email 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It was all instromental, there were no words to it. 70.254.22.143 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Then presumably it was the main theme to Stripes. --Richardrj talk email 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda In The Cold War

I am making a thesis about Propaganda in the cold war and in particular the development of methods of propaganda, and as a result I have been busy researching several elements but It seems I can not find specific information about:

  1. Propaganda In Africa and Southern America--
  2. Specific Propaganda in the Netherlands--
  3. The Usage of Subliminal Messaging in propaganda--
  4. The antipropaganda in the opposite forces (Soviet propaganda in America and American Propaganda in the USSR)--
  5. The inter(propaganda)relations between the Publics republic of China and the Soviet Union (which I know wasn't good but that is about all I can find) --
  6. The influence of the radio<->television war on propaganda (early 50's it was cold, end 60's begin 70's it became rather enheated)--

Thanks In Advance,

ps. please state what exact question you are answering if you will, It would make things easier for me. sources are not mandatory but it would be enjoyable.

Wikified the numbering style. DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Graendal 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • 5 — there was a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda created by the PRC after the Sino-Soviet split. The WP page on that has an example of some of that. Also I am not sure where one draws the line between "propaganda" and "normal public political discourse" in countries like the PRC and USSR. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Try to get a copy of this book [1]. I have one, but I haven't really read it. It sounds so much like pure propaganda by an American to make Communism look bad. But I'm sure there is something there about how Communists invite Americans to their ideology. Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
6: It's indirect propaganda, but still, the US military helps movie makers that make the US army look good by lending them the real stuff, which can make a huge difference in cost. Also, the US government sponsors movies it considers 'good' in some way, such as those in which smoking is made to look bad. Most probably somehting similar was done for movies that made the commies look bad, but that's just an educated guess.
Oh, and of course the space race was one big propaganda thing, saying "look we're superior". During the first decade this boasting evolved from a simple 'bleep' from Sputnik I to moving pictures. The earliest I can think of were the images sent from the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Or were there any earlier ones? Moving pictures only make sense if there is something moving (on a human scale, so excluding time lapse photography), and that would be living things, like humans. Or animals. Was Laika televised? DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2: The magazine of the Communist Party of the Netherlands, de Waarheid (the Truth), was probably pretty pro-USSR. All of the rest of the magazines and newspapers were pretty much anti-USSR, but I don't suppose that qualifies as specific propaganda. Of course the strong participation of communists in the resistance (we have no article on communist resistance?!) ,in the Netherlands and elsewhere, had a propagandist effect, but I don't know in how far that was the intention - it was probably more because the nazis were the diagonal opposites of the communists. DirkvdM 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated question

Don't delete those questions. In what episode Freeza declare to uso only one percent of his strenght? Initially, in the fighting against Freeza, Goku fights without Kaiokenh and Freeza fights with 2.5% of his power? After, what percentualy of his power Freeza uses? And in what episode Goku starts to use Kaiokenh 10? --Vess 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Be more civil, state the subject of your question (and put that question into a better title) and contact the culprit directly who removed it. They probably had a valid reason, you just need to be more open minded. Telling someone here "don't delete questions" won't get you anywhere. I can't find the person who deleted it. martianlostinspace 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Dragonball Z, but I don't know the answer to the question, it's ages since I watched them. Cell was the bomb. Proto::type 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You asked the same question yesterday. Not sure if it was deleted, but at least it's there, now, further up on the page. 惑乱 分からん 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Did Canada achieve National Security in the postwar world? Are there any good websites that provide information about this topic? Thanks Cee Cee

Are we in a postwar world ? That's news to me. Do you mean the post-WW2 world ? Or perhaps the post-cold war world ? StuRat 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Are we at war with posts? I knew you couldn't trust those sneaky things! Clarityfiend 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer - yes I think so - I'm not canadian but from what I've heard it's pretty safe there - no major external threats or enemies...87.102.8.53 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ninety percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. -THB 00:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What is your definition of safe? No foreign threats? No domestic threats? No crime at all? --The Dark Side 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, since their inceptions, we've been members of both NATO, in terms of security against conventional warfare, as well as NORAD, a cooperative effort with the US to provide cold-war era security against any possible nuclear attack upon North America. Of course that isn't to say that some of us don't naively take our national security for granted. I hate to say this of my country, but in an almost parasitic yet unconscious sense, our national security during the cold-war was almost completely based on the simple fact that it would be intolerable in terms of American national security for any malevolent force (i.e. the USSR) to invade and occupy that vast northern territory contiguous with the US, known as Canada. If only my fellow citizens would recognize this obvious fact, perhaps our (previous Liberal) governments, and many Canadians in general wouldn't assume that embarrasingly snotty, holier-than-thou attitude in our relations with our neighbours to the south. I for one, don't. I'm grateful to the Americans for footing the enormous bill (in terms of military expenditures) required to keep the Soviets at bay, while we, with noses raised, dared to look down on the US for not having the extra cash for universal health care, or for not affording the luxury of being a nation of "peace-makers". I, for one, salute my American friends and thank them for watching our sorry asses during the entire cold war, and, of course, for winning it. But there are many other Canadians who share my views, so I hope my American friends won't lump us all together as having the same ungrateful attitude. Loomis 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome ! (We actually mailed you a bill, but Canada Post lost it.) StuRat 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure if this made any news in the US, but our Liberal Party is at this moment in the midst of choosing a new leader at a convention in Montreal. Guess who they invited to be the "key-note" speaker at its opening? Non other than your lovable lefty lunatic, Howard Dean. Suffice it to say, not that I need yet another reason, but I certainly won't be voting Liberal next time around. I'm actually very proud to say that we've finally elected a Tory PM who actually has the nerve to openly endorse many US foreign policies, and to quit playing the same tired old anti-American card. Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaawwwwww, Howard!!!! Loomis 10:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is the first recorded human by name?

I am not talking about biblical references to Adam, and I am not looking for named bones of Neanderthals, or frozen cavemen named by their location found.

In my research, I found this reference to the first predynastic Pharoh in Egypt, Tiu.

This is referenced under significant people in 4000 BC.

There is no section for significant people under 5000 BC, so I am guessing that even if Tiu is not the first known named person, that person is likely from the same era.

In other references here, the people mentioned are noted as possibly mythical. This seems to be the earliest confirmed human known by their own name. If this Tiu is the first known reference to a human by their name, it might be worth noting on his page.

This is my first time using this reference, so please let me know if I have made any errors in usage. Thank you in advance, CodeCarpenter 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The modern humans who lived before writing was invented History of writing likely had names and owned things. We just have no way of knowing their names. Once writing was invented, then the names were likely recorded. The Tărtăria tablets have been carbon dated to 5500 BC, although stratigraphic info suggests a more recent date. The figures on them look like writing, but there is no clue what it means. An inscription could mean "This is a devout man who sacrificed to the god of harvest" or "I owe you 10 jars of oil. Joe" Doubters claim they are just meaningless doodles, in a way reminiscent of some medieval scholars who thought Egyptian heiroglyphics showing for instance a man plowing, then a flock of birds, then a man holding a stick just meant that a man who was plowing got mad at the birds and waved a stick at them, while a late 19th century analysis after Decipherment of hieroglyphic writing might show that such an inscription was written language about kingship and administration and dynastic succession. Scholars using the Rosetta stone and considerable cleverness by 1820 were able to sound out the ancient Egyption language as well as decipher the heiroglyphics, so they could look at king list written centuries after the the fact and give a name to the earliest king. If the listing was done centuries later, it might be as doubtful as Adam or any other folk tradition of a people's origin. The point is, the very earliest writing may contain names we just have not yet (and may never) learn to read and pronounce. Any symbol incised or stamped in grave goods of any caveman might be his personal name-symbol in the same sense. Edison 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The Tiu article lists no dates (and I can't find any non-Wikipedia related info on Tiu from Google) so we can't tell for instance if Tiu pre-dates the Upper Egyptian Pharoahs Serket I, Iry-Hor or Ka who also have no dates (See List of Pharaohs). The earliest verified Sumerian name is Enmebaragesi who lived perhaps five centuries after Tiu. Rmhermen 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your question will depend on what exactly you mean by "recorded". For one thing, the record may be much later than the person: Tiu lived in the late 4th millennium, but I believe that his name is known from king lists that were compiled centuries later. By "first recorded" you obviously mean "first surviving and understood (deciphered) record", so the Tartaria tablets are out. This still leaves open, does your record need to be in phonological script, or can it just be a symbol or heraldic device? For example, does the scorpion king count? We know this was some ruler that used a scorpion as his heraldic badge. Is this a "record"? But then, as Edison says, will not any totem animal drawn in a cave by a paleolithic hunter be a "record" as well? If you settle for "linguistic record", and will not allow records of legendary kings many centuries in the past at the time the record was made, your earliest record will date to after 3000 BC, probably rulers mentioned in the Pyramid Texts. A more meaningful question might be, what is our earliest phonological record of a name? Here, we do not need to decide whether the person named is mythical, semi-mythical or historical, we just have to decipher the record and date it. I estimate this will be around the 26th century BC or so, and will probably not change even if we should decipher the Tataria tablets, which will in all likelyhood be logographic, not phonological. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To Edison, I agree that there might be (and quite likely are) references to people that predate Tiu, but that have not been translated or cannot be translated. After all, Tiu had to have elders before him, but their names have been lost to us. It is an unfortunate limitation, but still part of my curiousity, in the sense that any earlier person, by not being read of, is not who I am looking for. Perhaps the question should be changed to "Who is the first recorded human by name based upon our current understanding of known artifacts?". CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To Rmhermen: Nice catch on Serket I and Serket II. The confusion comes in when they both link to "Scorpion King" page (one as Scorpion King and the other as King Scorpion), and the reference in 4000 BC only lists Serket without a I or II designation. Your page does open up the question (which the 4000 BC page does not, since the only Serket listed had no predecessor) as to which of these two pharaohs were first to exist. Thanks for finding that, this is a fun challenge! CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To Dbachmann: For my purposes (non-scholastic curiousity), the references to Tiu and Serket are both acceptible. Since drawing a line in the sand could represent a name, but only if others also recognize it, I will go with the idea of any glyph, image, impression, or writing that is known to represent a real living person's name. It just came to me when I saw that 5000 BC had no significant persons, while 4000 BC did. CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian hieroglyphics offer the possibility of the oldest name, because of the use of the cartouche and earlier Shen ring devices sometimes used to denote names. With those, a name can be identified by their mere presence, it's not necessary to decipher the actual text. The cartouche wasn't, but was the Shen ring in use from the earliest Egyptian records ? StuRat 06:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apology.

ok fine. i was wrong to threaten but im still defending the words that were on there before. For example on the jimi hendrix (1 out of maybe 10 articles already) the words read According to fans and critics alike, jimi henrix may have been the greatest and most influential electric guitarist in rock music history. then when i read it again about a week ago (up to present), it says he is ONE of the greatest and infuential guitarists. but when i change it back, it goes back the way it was recently. so im just sayin somebody else should get blamed for that. im nopt the one who put those words on there in the first place. srry for threatening. wont do it again.Jk31213 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "one of" is clearly more NPOV. 惑乱 分からん 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Otherwise, apology accepted. 惑乱 分からん 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Fan opinion carries no weight here. What you need to do is find a critic or some other famous guitarist who stated that in a book or newspaper article. Then you can cite him/her. "may have been" is what we call a weasel phrase and is to be avoided (there's an article somewhere that explains it). Clarityfiend 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It is Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.  --LambiamTalk 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Jk31213, I gave you similar advice on a past occasion. You must channel your enthusiasm in a manner that does not violate WP:NPOV. -THB 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you find a reputable poll (not just some random magazine or website) which lists him number one or top five or something? You could then post a link to that poll. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leibniz Theodicy - objection III

Hi, I am having trouble understanding Leibniz's response to objection III. It can be found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm

I would greatly appreciate anyone who can simplify it so that a person not involved in philosophical study can understand it. Thanks. --Sish 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Leibniz: it may be that he who knows all can see our actions as predetermined, but that does not mean that we do not make decisions. The key quote here is, I think: "if it is certain that we shall perform them [certain voluntary actions], it is not less certain that we shall choose to perform them." Does that help? See also: Free_will#Compatibilism. Skarioffszky 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(Comment:It really looks like Liebniz is on sticky ground here - if all things are predetermined then invoking choice or feelings of being able to choose seems to me to be logically inconsistent (ie ridiculous) - this makes the sinner a prisoner to the will of god and hence makes god lacking in goodness..)87.102.8.53 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! This is a good start in helping me understand this. However is it possible to get something a bit more indepth? A LOT more is said by Leibniz and I understand so little of it. --Sish 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think Liebniz has waffled a bit here on objection 3 - it's not a particularily good point for an objection and so doesn't get a particularily good answer. The objection says effectively Action A (sinning) is unavoidable, therefor action B (punishment) is wrong (or in effect a sin). I draw two conclusions from this, firstly bad begets bad. And secondly and more importantly if it is impossible not to sin then why not impossible to not punish.
ie if the sin is unavoidable then the punishment will be equally unavoidable - why judge the punishment as unjust - such reasoning reduces all actions (good or bad) to simple events and so is immoral. Surely the point of philosophy is to think - not to attempt to follow poorly set up arguments and the responses to them.
I use the rule of thumb - Poor arguments give long answers. If too answer is difficult (long winded) then maybe there was something wrong with the question. Apologies for wasting your time.87.102.8.53 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Twice apologies for any offence - You could say I have shown "The doctrinaire contempt for metaphysics, characteristic of analytic and linguistic philosophy" (Gottfried_Leibniz#Posthumous reputation)

What Leibniz himself says he is doing is denying that predetermined equals necessary. He admits that human choices are predetermined in the sense that God has already seen us make them, but he denies that they are necessary. To him, necessary things (necessary in the sense that is relevant here, or absolutely necessary) are those that happen regardless of what any animate being wills, such as a rock falling when it is dropped. By definition, then, human acts are not necessary, because they result from voluntary choice.

Toward the end, he compares the objection to what he calls the "lazy sophism": since everything is predetermined, why bother to do anything? The error here is that if you have no choice, you can't choose to do nothing. Foreshadowings of Sartre there, we're doomed to choose.--Rallette 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing, I think it is also useful to consider here what Leibniz says in response to objections vi and vii. He says that God does give everyone sufficient opportunity to see the light and choose the good. But he apparently admits that God does not give everyone the means, or character, to do so. It is in this that his goodness seems to fall short of perfect, and it is here that Leibniz resorts to the mysterious ways explanation: "The best plan of the universe, which God could not fail to choose, made it so. We judge from the event itself; since God has made it, it was not possible to do better."

It appears to me that Leibniz does not consider this as a question of freedom of will. Will is will and it's a pointless quibble whether it is "really" free or not: freedom is an attribute that belongs to will by definition, and to ask whether it is really free is like asking whether the number five is "really" five, as if there were some more profound fiveness or idea of five somewhere that the number might conceivably fall short of.

Hm. Sorry, I'm afraid I may not be making the issue any clearer for you, and I really don't know what Leibniz would have thought of my last paragraphs. It's rather past my bedtime and I'll stop posting for tonight. But this is a very interesting question.--Rallette 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think the question/objection needs looking at and analysing before considering Liebniz's response - the question has various errors of reasoning and should not be answered - namely it suggests there is no 'free will' (ie everything is predetermined) then judges an action as a sin (how can an unforced action be judged? can I judge a ball for rolling downhill?), then it judges one who would judge the first action despite the fact that under the conditions described the person making judgements would also be incapable of free will and therefor just as innocent of any responsiblity as the 'sinner' - it's an illogical argument - I too would have difficulty understanding the answer to an illogical question. I hope this may help you too.87.102.8.53 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz is not exactly my expertise, but I suggest that the objection is:

1) Determinism is true: all events, including human actions, are made to happen by prior causes, and cannot happen otherwise than they do happen;
2) If you couldn't have done otherwise, you aren't morally responsible for what you did;
3) So, in a deterministic world, there can be no morality and no just punishment.

Leibniz's response is similar to that of later compatibilists:

1) It's true that if you couldn't have done otherwise, you aren't morally responsible for what you did;
2) But it's only true when you couldn't have done otherwise because someone or something forced you to do what you did, i.e. you were coerced;
3) Natural necessity is not coercion;
4) So, if you do what you really wanted to do (that is, you willed and acted on your will without constraint), you are morally responsible for what you did, and can justly be punished if it was wrong.

It doesn't matter that your wanting and willing were predetermined. What matters for moral responsibility is that you acted on your own will, not under constraint or coercion. If I'm right about this reading, then Leibniz is prefiguring David Hume. See further Free will. Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare quote

Where in a Shakespeare work is the remark that goes something like: "The appetite grows by what it feeds on"? 66.213.33.2 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet, Act I, scene 2:
"...So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on..."
Skarioffszky 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections of a page

How do you add a section?

Great, one gold star awarded. Well done!87.102.8.53 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
See Self-fulfilling prophecy or Wikipedia:New contributors' help page - which ever applies.
You have two options for how to add a new section:
1) The "+" sign after the "edit this page" tab at the top of each page allows you to add a section at the end of any article.
2) You can also use the "edit this page" tab to edit the entire article, or the "[edit]" button at the top, right side of any current section, to add new sections. Once the edit section is opened, you can add sections using equals signs, like this:

=Main section=

==Section== (default size created by "+" sign)

===Subsection===

====Sub-subsection====

And, in the future, please post any question on how to use Wikipedia here: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. StuRat 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you're still confused because you used the "ask a new question by clicking here" link. Normally, a new section is added on a talk page by clicking the '+' at the top and in an article by putting a header between equal signs. Add more to create sub-headers. Note when you click 'edit' to the top right here, you'll see two times two flanking the header above.

[edit] Subsection

Two times three equal signs make a subheader

[edit] Sub-subsection

etc. DirkvdM 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fernand pelez 1843-1913

(i asked this question before but then i couldnt find the reference page again and now it is too old and i cant find it.) where can i get any kind of information about this painter? thank you --Mkpdp 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The question was here, but there was no response.  --LambiamTalk 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately he does seem to be a fairly obscure fellow. You probably need to go to a french library. I did find a pic of him [2] meltBanana 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are very serious about scholarly study of this painter, ask the staff of the Petit Palais for advice, preferably through a contact at a museum of some stature in your country. -THB 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You might try: (1981) "Fernand Pelez, or the Other Side of the Post-Impressionist Coin", in Barasch M. and L. Sandler eds.: Art the Ape of Nature: Studies in Honor of H. W. Janson. New York: Harry N. Abrams, pp.707-18. ISBN 0810911531.  Amazon link.EricR 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

great!!! thank you. now, any where i can get a poster of les saltimabanques?? thank you mkpdp--68.35.11.212 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] countries the US has helped

How can I ask/find what countries the USA has provided both military and economic aid to as part of peacekeeping missions, in the 20th century? I need at least 10 countries. Can't seem to find an area to search or ask for information from.74.228.122.146 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are better off taking a list of every country and removing those the U.S. hasn't helped. To make it real easy, just look at World War II and pick any 10 of the allied countries. --Kainaw (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been asserted that the U.S. never provided economic or military aid to Canada, so that is one to deduct from the list of all countries. Edison 00:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It has also been asserted that the U.S.-led NAFTA provided economic benefit to Canada and Mexico at the expense of the U.S. economy. So, that would put Canada back on the list. --Kainaw (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Check out Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration and you'll find at least five.Wolfgangus 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I found this list from the Census Bureau, but they tie both types of aid into one as dollar amounts.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/06s1286.xls
In terms of military aid, there are multiple lists to pull from, but this one is pretty conclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
This one mentions the annual cost of military aid, not including Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#Military_aid
I hope this helps, CodeCarpenter 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what one considers help. In both world wars, the US fought alongside its allies, who of course helped each other, but I doubt if that is what you mean. The US mostly strike out on their own and to their own pov that would often constitute help, but helping some militarily automatically means fighting (thus not helping) others. Whether something is a peacekeeping mission is aways debatable. And those one wants to help might not consider it 'help' at all. Economic aid is much clearer. The Marshall plan was considerable help to Eropean countries. And of course the US, like any other country (just to a lesser degree) gives many poor countries economic aid. You might find some answers in Aid or articles linking from there. Did that aid? :) DirkvdM 09:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Lend-Lease. The US was still neutral at the time, so the nations helped under Lend-Lease would not be considered allies until the US actually entered the war. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional law and constitutional theories

I am to write a paper concerning constitutional law and constitutional theories as tools to achieve political goal. It is mainly about the battle between conservatists and progresive people. About maintaining status quo and pushing things forward.

I do not know where to begin.

I would be extremely thankful for any help --Yarovit 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC

You could start at Conservative. Do a bit of background - it might help to know where you are (eg. in the UK, an MP called Edmund Burke is the "father of modern conservativism".) Remember that conservativism isn't unilaterally opposed to reform (in general) - they're just slower on it than the political left normally is.martianlostinspace 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If US law applies, consider the impact of certain Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v Wade Wolfgangus 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If it helps with answers, their userpage suggests they're Polish. Skittle 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am Polish, but US law applies. It is to be as general as possible. --Yarovit 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A good case in point is Gideon v. Wainwright. At the time of the case, some states did not automatically provide lawyers for poor defendants. Although there were political movements in those states to create Public Defender offices, things were moving slowly. With one court case, based on constitutional law, all such states were forced to create such offices immediately. B00P 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think your topic is too broad. I read Antonin Scalia's book On Interpretation this past week. If you can understand it, it is a wonderful start. He is now the leading conservative jurist on the U.S. Supreme Court. The book includes articles by very prestigious law professors who disagree with him. Frankly, much is made of the difference in construing civil law code constitutions and the common law constitutions of England and the U.S. I would narrow it down significantly. Roe v. Wade may be too controversial. Any recent Establishment Clause case would be a good idea if you focus on one case and not Establishment Clause law in general. Gideo and Brown are certainly landmark but I feel they may be too grand and famous. (75Janice 2:00 , 1 December 2006 UTC

[edit] The lady's not for turning

Please can someone explain Margaret Thatcher's famous soundbite "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!" Auximines 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The first part is a clumsy play on the phrase 'U-turn', meaning a policy volte-face. In the second part, she's saying that she won't perform any such U-turns. --Richardrj talk email 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I got the first part, but never understood the second. "The lady's..." is a pretty strange expression, I wondered if it was a play on something else. Auximines 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. You're right though, it's a weird phrase. She was well known for working on her speeches late into the night; she almost certainly wrote those lines herself. --Richardrj talk email 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is part to suggest some redoubtable dreadnought and a play on the title of The Lady's Not for Burning. BTW Thatcher's main scriptwriter at the time was Ronald Miller another playwright. And in another of my semi-irregular plugs for wikiquote the information is already there q:Margaret Thatcher meltBanana 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's puzzled me for 26 years. Now I finally understand it! It's a pretty obscure reference though, I can't believe many people got it. Many thanks! Auximines 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
We got it OK buddy! We were used to her--Light current 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I always understood what she meant, I just wondered what the reference was! Auximines 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It might also help if some explanation of the general political and economic context is offered. Following her victory in the General Election of 1979 Margaret Thatcher embarked on a monetarist economic policy, reversing decades of Keynsianism. In the early 1970s Edward Heath, her predecessor as leader of the Conservative Party, had tried some tentative move in this general direction, though the policy was soon reversed in the face of widespread labour unrest-the birth of the U turn. In the early 1980s, as unemployment rose to record levels, and more and more of the old industries were going bankrupt, the liberal press was full of speculation about when the new U-turn would come, which, in their estimation was only a matter of time. Mrs. Thatcher's response was to insist that the course had been set and would be followed. The lady was indeed not for turning. Clio the Muse 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe also see: Christopher_Fry, The Lady's Not for Burning... --Shirt58 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_Archives_Humanities_2006_December_1_3b94.html"