Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 26 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 28 >
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] November 27

[edit] Breakdown of Brazil's governmental expenditures

I've looked, and have been unable to find, an English-language source online that describes how Brazil spends its money on social services. (Former President Cardoso said such a list was available, in a lecture in "Development Challenges in the 1990s".) Is anyone more adept at finding such things than I am? - Epistemenical 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are familiar with Benedict Clement's paper Income Distribution and Social Expenditure in Brazil? It may be a little out of date now, though still useful. You might also try the OECD Economic Survey of Brazil for 2005. A google search should conjure this up. Best of luck. Clio the Muse 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I hadn't known of Clement's paper. That looks useful, although it is indeed somewhat out of date. It also doesn't talk specifically about the the bolsa familia program or its predecessor, bolsa escola, with which I am particularly concerned. I had found the OECD report, which is excellent. Epistemenical 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care of the elderly

Finding research about care of the elderly doesn't seem to be widely available. Do you know of sites that would help? I need sites with information about the nursing homes and also information about their health and sickness pattern.

It would help if you could identify what country you have in mind. But try a general google search. Clio the Muse 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
An IP lookup suggests they are in Roseau in Dominica. Anyone know anything about care for the elderly in Dominica? Skittle 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] postmodernists and deconstructionists who deconstruct classics

Most (all?) postmodernists and deconstructionists seem to reject the significance of "high" culture. Then, it seems to me, they spend a lot of time trying to either deconstruct classics to show they are of no absolute value. This apparently helps them to advance their careers, because they have undermined the status of a revered work, and hence dented any notions of cultural elitism. One possible example is J. Hillis Miller's Optic and Semiotic in Middlemarch. (I say "possible" because I don't know if Miller actually attempts to deconstruct Middlemarch, or attack its canonical status.) Is this an example of deconstructing a classic? Are there any other good examples of poststructuralists/ deconstructionists etc. achieving recognition from the cultural left by undermining canonical works? The Mad Echidna 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all a bit difficult but I will have a go. Deconstruction is not really about destroying the reputation of a piece of hight culture or firing it from a canon. What it is though is less certain, unless you want a simple cynical appraisal, but a vague description may be using a work's own inner reality and logic to criticise it. This is much of Miller's scheme in Optic…, as this review explains Middlemarch is regarded nowadays as a complete examination of Victorian provincial society but the optical metaphors suggest Eliot either knowingly or unknowingly confesses to its incompleteness. I don't know about good examples people achieving recognition from the cultural left but it does not seem like any worthwhile measure of fame, most critics have made their name from championing or dissing someone. Canons should be held in suspicion as that was leads to infallibility and sainthood. Question not whether they deserve to be canon but what makes them canon. Middlemarch is a good example of canonisation: popular when written but high culture? more like middle-class pop-culture. Rather forgotten soon after but rediscovered by people like Virginia Woolf and F. R. Leavis and now a cornerstone of english literature. It certainly wasn't written as as an enduring classic, more like to unfinished stories welded together. Sorry what was the question again? meltBanana 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
MeltBanana sums it up well, I think. Deconstruction is not actually about trying to prove that classics aren't so great after all. I know a professor who is an admirer of Derrida but would probably fail you for claiming that deconstruction is about "showing that classics are of no absolute value"...this professor is also a Joyce scholar, and I get the feeling he appreciates classics differently by reading them in a Derridean way, or something like that. I've taken only one or two classes on the subject, but I think you should do a bit more reading if you want to understand deconstruction. Subtle, balanced views are more difficult to find, but more interesting, than sweeping, hysterical reactions a la Harold Bloom and Terry Eagleton. And keep in mind that it's never very productive to criticize someone's writing by hypothesising about the effect it might have on their career.
Now, I'm trying to remember but I don't know of many literary examples (literary studies isn't my field). I've read Derrida's long essay about Lacan's psychoanalysis of Poe's "The Purloined Letter". I quite enjoyed it, but Lacan's work isn't a classic. Derrida also writes about Plato's Pharmakon and something or other by Mallarme. If you need more examples I suggest you go through the lists of selected works in the articles for specific postmodernist scholars. --Grace 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do the following have in common, the answer can only be three words

Need to know what the below people, places and events have in common or are related. The answer must be only three letters, thanks. Martha Calling, Stonehenge, Lucy Van Pelt, Picasso, Jeremy Bentham, Auntie Mame, Black Hills, The Blues Brothers, Arnold Toynbee, Schenck v. United States, Stephen Hawking, Philli/Agape/Xenike, Rosalind Russell, Ottoman Empire, Sea Of Tranquility, Dord, It's A Wonderful Life, Merlin, The Blue Angel, Lucille Ball, Conestoga Wagons, Elvis, Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, Discovery of Teflon, Civil Rights Movement, Sue, Mel Gibson, Julia Child, Iva Ikuko Toguri, Brigadoon.

        • Personally I thing it is "Trial And Error", but I am not very smart so any help is appreciated and need soon as possible.

Thank You. Please email if you discover puzzle answer.

Three letters or three words -- which is it? --Proficient 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Teflon wasn't trial and error - it was discovered by accident. And "Dord" was also accidental - a non-existent word that turned up in dictionaries for a while. It doesn't have an article on WP, otherwise "Article on Wikipedia" might have been the answer :) Grutness...wha? 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Dord does have an article, as well as a Wiktionary page: dord. Laïka 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Article on Wikipedia" was my first guess, but "Discovery of Teflon" isn't an article. :( Newyorkbrad 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds very familar to the notoriously annoying Gry riddle, and as such, sounds like you may have gotten a distorted version of it leading only to confusion (and madness, in some cases). Is it possible that the original question was phrased, for example, in precisely the following way?
"Many words have much in common with each other. The answer is only three words. Think about the following: Martha Calling, Stonehenge, Lucy Van Pelt, Picasso, Jeremy Bentham, Auntie Mame, Black Hills, The Blues Brothers, Arnold Toynbee, Schenck v. United States, Stephen Hawking, Philli/Agape/Xenike, Rosalind Russell, Ottoman Empire, Sea Of Tranquility, Dord, It's A Wonderful Life, Merlin, The Blue Angel, Lucille Ball, Conestoga Wagons, Elvis, Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, Discovery of Teflon, Civil Rights Movement, Sue, Mel Gibson, Julia Child, Iva Ikuko Toguri, Brigadoon. What is the anwer?
"Only Three Words". (Groan...) Get it? Just focus on the sentence "The answer is only three words". The rest of the riddle is all rubbish just to distract you. "The answer is: 'ONLY THREE WORDS'". I know, very annoying.
That may not be the solution, but I highly suspect that something like that is going on. Loomis 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
People, places or events? --Bowlhover 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Moral: Never answer puzzles like this one, you'll only look stupid. Moonwalkerwiz 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart as Party Animal

He's certainly depicted as such in Amadeus, but I could find nothing in related articles to inform me either way. Was he a drunk as depicted? Did he have the funny cackle from the movie? I know most of Amadeus is supposed to be BS. 71.252.11.5 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any evidence on the nature of the Mozart laugh. Amadeus is a fiction based upon a fiction (an earlier drama by Pushkin), though it's certainly true the Mozart correspondence reveals a few very immature attitudes. But it really has to be said that drama, even the most objective, rarely captures the true essence of the subject under magnification. In any case, the work transcends the image: the music is greater than the man. Clio the Muse 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
While 'party animal' doesn't apply, Mozart liked a good time. He loved dancing and going to masked balls and he and Constanze even threw a few in their home; his letters are full of plays on language (Sprachspiele is how Spaethling terms it); he was a solid billiards player and if you believe a letter of his from 1791 also liked to smoke tobacco in a pipe; he was a staple in the best Viennese salons for many years; and by way of personal vanity he ran up enormous debts, in particular on nice clothes (the wardrobe he left behind is massive for someone who made what he did). Also, in contrast to the character in Amadeus, his first biographer Niemetschek wrote that he typically demanded the attention of those around him when he performed and could both lose his temper and his patience when he didn't get it.Wolfgangus 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
For some of Mozart's most obscene compositions, see this article, which is the best discussion I could find (despite its numerous German misprints, its possibly unfounded speculations about Tourette's, etc.) of such secular (to say the least) Kantatenwerk as "Leck mich im Arsch." Wareh 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why do communists say that Russia/ the USSR didn't really introduce Marx's ideas?

I've heard that communists claim that the communism as it existed in Russia/ The USSR was not really the way Marx ever intended it. How close was it to Marx's communism? What were the key differences? From reading the WP articles, I can tell that many people would refer to communist Russia as having a dictatorship of the proletariat, a prelude to communism, but that doesn't tell me anything really concrete. Also, I know that the state is supposed to wither away under communism, but that doesn't say anything about whether it will happen naturally during the dictatorship of the proletariat, or whether the dictatorship has to do something to make that happen. If it's the former (happening naturally), then you can't say Lenin failed to introduce communism, because it was supposed to happen of its own accord, and since it didn't, Marx's theory was simply wrong. If it's the latter (the proletarian dictatorship must make it happen) what were they supposed to do to create the classless society? The Mad Echidna 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Echidna. A big question, and it deserves a big answer! First of all, Communism, as understood, and advanced, by Karl Marx, is a theoretical construct, a model of an ideal society-in his mind-and one that has never existed in practical terms. Those states ruled by Communist Parties have, in fact, in terms of this model, been Socialist, which is a stage of development, supposedly, on the road to the ideal. So nether Marx, nor indeed Lenin, would have maintained that Communism had been achieved in Russia after 1917, because it cannot be realized in a single country. Marx believed that after a Revolution the proletariat, the subordinate class under the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', would become politically and culturally dominant. In practical terms what this would have meant in Russia is that the rule by the Soviets, the agencies of working class control, would have continued indefinitely. Again in practice, as agencies of power and authority, they were effectively superseded at an early stage by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. In other words, the dictatorship of the party took the place of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and eventually the dictatorship of one man took the place of the dictatorship of the party. Lenin discussed the whole question of the withering away of the state in State and Revolution; but his own objective actions after 1917 did in fact move in the reverse direction. In part this lies in the nature of Bolshevism itself, which was a movement of an elitist and exclusive nature, and partly in the political conditions in Russia in 1918, following the onset of the Civil War. For Communism to have taken shape, again in terms of the theory, there would have to have been a revolution throughout the whole world. It was Lenin's hope that his revolution was the first of a chain. It did not happen. The state grew stronger, not weaker. No ideal: just Stalin. Clio the Muse 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything Clio said except Communism "is a theoretical construct, a model of an ideal society-in his mind-and one that has never existed in practical terms." Marx was always concerned with the real, material world and not with phantoms of the mind. Supposing that Marx's analysis of history is still valid today, then we are still treading history as he saw it. Communism is as real as Capitalism, and as Marx once said, it grows in its "womb." I quote from German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Capitalism is ripening every day, and the consumation of Communism is happening every second. Moonwalkerwiz 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The ideal Marxist state is one where the organs of the state themselves begin to wither away. Much the contrary route was undertaken in the USSR. There is also the whole bit about Marxian communism being a tale about industrialized countries, of which Russia was not in 1917. Only by declaring peasants to be the class-equivalents to proliteriat (which Marx would have disagreed on) was Lenin able to even pretend Russia could be on the road to Communism. In any case under Marx's theory communism follows (after many other stages) on the heels of industrial capitalism, something which never existed in Russia. (None of this says that Marx's theory is in any way correct — there is absolutely no indication that it is — but Russia was not an ideal test case of it in any event.) --24.147.86.187 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are one or two errors and misconceptions in your contribution, 24. 147. In actual fact the rate of industrialisation in Russia in the twenty year period leading up to the outbreak of war in 1914 was considerably greater than any other developed nation. Though still well behind the powers of western Europe, it was catching up fast, with major manufactories based at Petersburg, Moscow and elsewhere. Lenin never declared the peasants to be the 'class-equivalent' of the proletariat and, like Marx, remained deeply suspicious of what he would have defined as their petty-bourgeoise class loyalties. However, he was a political realist, and understood that his party could never come to power-or hold on to it-without the collaboration of the peasantry; hence his policy on land distribution. But it was never more than an alliance of convenience. From 1928 onwards the peasants were destroyed as an independent class by Stalin. Lenin took power with the support of the industrial working class; held on to it with the complicity of a land-hungry peasantry, and consolidated it by strengthening the forms of the authoritarian state. Clio the Muse 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate on one of the things Clio said above, one of the major differences between orthodox Marxism and Soviet Communism was the rejection of internationalism. Marx had intended communism to be a worldwide phenomenon in which class consciousness would replace national identity. The Bolsheviks were at a bit of a loss when they took over most of the former Russia Empire but failed to inspire revolutions throughout Europe. Stalin promoted the idea of "Socialism in One Country," that is, that the USSR could "build socialism" within its borders without a global revolution. People like Leon Trotsky whose views were closer to those of Marx were persecuted as followers of "cosmopolitanism." Eventually, Soviet Bloc countries would adapt highly nationalistic attitudes, in complete contradition to orthodox Marxism. -- Mwalcoff 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there was a rather strong revolutionary/communist force in Western Europe as well, but it was suppressed, with the holocaust as a prime example. The Netherlands was close to a revolution shortly after Russia (see Pieter Jelles Troelstra) and after WWII the communist party got 10% of the seats in parliament. And the much larger socialist party was much more revolutionary then than it is now (because the whole idea of socialism was pretty new and thus revolutionary in itself). I suppose it's socialism that ultimately killed communism. After the near-revolution the new right-wing government started doing all sorts of left wing stuff to keep the people happy. Happy people don't revolt. DirkvdM 05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Dirk, none of what you have said here has any bearing at all on the point under consideration. However, I cannot allow what you have written to pass without comment. It takes two things to make a revolution: the collapse of established forms of governance and authority, and the existence of a strong, determined and well-organized party ready to take power. Nowhere in Western Europe did government collapse, not even in Germany. But even if there had been a Communist takeover in the Netherlands it would have been destroyed by British and French intervention, with, I imagine, active Dutch support, in much the same fashion as the regime of Bela Kun in Hungary. Incidentally, I can make no sense of your point about 'the holocaust'. What holocaust?
So the Dutch Communists managed to get 10% of the seats in parliament? Ten per cent. I expect this was based on levels of support similar to those enjoyed by Anton Mussert at his height. However, you have come close to providing a good definition of what Communism in action really is: 10% dictating to 90% is about as close to the real situation in Lenin's Russia as you are likely to get. I think, if I may be able to express a personal opinion, that it is a matter worthy of celebration that the decent, tolerant, civilized and cultured people of the Netherlands managed to avoid all the horrors inflicted on Russia under Lenin and Stalin. Socialism did not kill Communism: Communism was dead at birth. Clio the Muse 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Clio, that industrialisation in Russia went faster than in Western Europe is a consequence of Western Europe already having industrialised. Russia would have had to not industrialise at all to not develop faster. Well, maybe that's an overstatement, but you get the point. Oh, and the peasants weren't land-hungry, they were just plain hungry. DirkvdM 05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Industrialization is not a static process, Dirk. The rate of economic development in Russia was faster than comparable rates among the western powers. And you really need to look a little deeper into Russian history, of which I suspect you know very little. The problem in 1917 wasn't lack of food, but lack of proper distribution. The peasants were not hungry; the city dwellers were. Clio the Muse 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll say it more plain, where there is little, any increase will be big. The remark about peasants being hungry was for comedic effect and indeed misleading. The point is that there was a lot of poverty. Why else did people revolt again and again? Stop saying I know nothing. You make factual mistakes too. Let's keep this civilised and not make it personal. DirkvdM 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It was for comedic effect? My goodness, you surprise me; I would never have guessed. I provided some clarification on this point just in case your remark was read-and misunderstood-by simple souls with no sense of humour or appreciation of your wit. Poverty does not lead to revolution: if it did revolution would be a daily occurence throughout the world. Revolutions arise when those in power have lost the ability and the means to rule, a point I have already made in relation to Russia. My remarks were of a general nature, based on some of your more obvious misunderstandings/jokes. They were not meant to be taken personally; indeed perhaps they were intended as a joke? However, exchanges between us are clearly of an unproductive and sterile nature, and therefore at an end. Clio the Muse 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In communism everyone share everything (lanour and goods) with everyone else. In a Socialist State the government forces people to do that and re-educates them to start doing that by themselves. When they do, the state will become obsolete. But it takes time for this 'new man' to emerge. I don't know what Marx said about this, but I assumed this would take several generations, if it would work at all. However, in Cuba I noticed that people have a strong sense of community and sharing. So maybe it works faster than I thought. DirkvdM 05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You obviously took the 'official tour'-or you see life through a rosy ideological lens-because your view of Cuba is nothing like my own, and I have been there many times. Well, I suppose you can have 'community and sharing' when you have nothing to share and you are forced to live in vile communal slums. What I met with most in Havana was greed, venality, anger and a sense of frustrated ambition. The party slogan is Socialism or Death. A good friend of mine, only thirty years old, said she would rather have death. Another said she longed for an American invasion. This is sad, is it not?. Re-education? I've seen enough of 're-education' around the world to feel anything but a sense of disgust when I hear that malevolent and sinister word. Clio the Muse 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Slums? You've seen slums in Cuba? Let's get straight what a slum is. To me that is not a neighbourhood full of run down houses, like the South Bronx (or in the film Once were warriors). Many big western cities have those. Havana has more of them, but then it's a poor country (and it's quite a bit safer to walk there than in the South Bronx :) ). To me a slum is pretty much what you see in the pictures in that article. Self-built houses made of left-overs from the dump, with currogated iron roofs and open 'sewers' that are really just dirt ditches. This you find a lot in really poor countries (most notably in Africa, but also in Sout East Asia). In Cuba I have only seen one, and I walk around a whole lot (I am addicted to walking), exploring the edges of cities and trying to avoid the 'guided tour' places, as you call it. But in this slum there was water and gas distribution, something I had never before seen in a slum. But enlighten me, in which Cuban cities have you seen any slums? DirkvdM 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Pinar del Rio, Santa Clara and many small rural communities. And above all Havana, Havana and again Havana. I've made my point. My purpose here is to provide such information as I can, within the limits of my competence and my expertise. You are clearly under no obligation to accept what I say on this or any other matter. However, I have no interest in barren polemics; so here the exchange ends. Clio the Muse 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I just want to inform Dirk that slums in my country have water and gas and electricity distribution. True, some of them are illegal, but one study I've read found that most of them are legal. And these are slums, which are, like you said, "self-built houses made of left-overs from the dump." I've seen slums with basketball courts, with stores, with billiards tables. Again, these are houses made of the poorest materials you can imagine, with old tires on their roofs to keep them from being blown away by the wind (and mosquitoes lay their eggs on them, thereby causing dengue fever to inhabitants). "Poverty" maybe subjective, but I am sure the absence of water and gas distribution alone is not the definition a slum. Moonwalkerwiz 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to define them as such. It's just that I hadn't seen that in slums before. Maybe until Cuba I had only been exposed to the worst kinds of slums. My first big trip was through Africa and maybe that's why I didn't consider what I saw in the Philippines as slums. DirkvdM 08:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Where in Havana? Like I said, I walk a lot, but in Havana it is pretty much impossible to walk to the edges of the city (whre slums usually are), starting from the centre because it's so immense. I've walked all over the city and not seen any slums. And please top reacting so agressively. DirkvdM 08:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FOLKS: This place is not there to have political discussions on Cuba, the Philippines, whether or not you like Marxism, and what else.

To answer the original question: there are several "kinds" of Communists.

  • Typically, some are the heirs of the "Stalinian" parties who used to be members of the Comintern (Third International), then Cominform, and thus were close to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
    • Among these parties, there typically are "reformist" people who consider that the Soviet Union made great mistakes and who now disapprove of the policies of that countries.
    • Others are unapologetic, and others take a middle ground.
  • Other parties trace their ideology to the Fourth International and Leon Trotsky. Following Trotsky's fall, they were persecuted by the Soviet Union and those close to that country. There used to be considerable enmity between the Trotskyite communists and the "Stalinians". Trotskyites often claim that, though originally the Soviet revolution was a good thing, it got misled by people such as Stalin into creating a degenerate workers' state and not a Communist or Socialist country. Some Trotskyites, for instance, consider that current People's Republic of China and North Korea are degenerate workers' states.
  • In any case, no Communist that I've ever come across claims that the Soviet Union was a Communist country. In Marxist theory, Communism implies the destruction of the State. The USSR and associated countries never called themselves Communist, but merely Socialist, because in their ideology Socialism was a transient state on the way to Communism. David.Monniaux 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, David; very nice. But if this is not the place to have a discussion on Cuba neither is it the place to raise issues about Trotsky, the Fourth International or North Korea, all of which are quite beside the point. If you read the above carefully you will see that I provided an answer at the outset. All subsequent discussion was by way of clarification, amplification and critique. Yes, and on a point of clarification, Marxist theory does not imply the 'destruction of the state', a position closer to Anarchism, but the gradual obsolesence of forms of state power and coercion, a quite different thing. But, anyway, thank you for your input. Clio the Muse 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my experience the kind of Communists who harp on whether the USSR was following Marxism or not tend to be Trotskyites. The antagonism between these and "Stalinian" parties can go some way in explaining their claims (that is, not only do they have theoretical arguments for claiming what they claim, they also have some resentment). David.Monniaux 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese (?) folk tale

Someone mentioned in response to a question here on the Reference Desk once a folk tale, I think it was Japanese but it may well have been Chinese or something. It was about a man who falls asleep near an anthill and has a dream where he is living the life of one of the ants, but in the form of a human. Does anyone know what this is called, or where I might find it online? I tried searching the reference desk archives with Google but to no avail. -Elmer Clark 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a folk tale, and not modern literature? 惑乱 分からん 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, all I really remember is that plot outline. -Elmer Clark 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a similar story in Taoism. Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, but when he woke up, he wondered if he might be a butterfly dreaming about being a man. --Kjoonlee 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a Chinese story known as 남가일몽 (南柯一夢) in Korea. 순우분 (淳于棼) fell asleep under a tree, underneath which was an ant's nest. Two emissaries came to him and said they'd been sent by the king. He came to a new kingdom, where he married a princess and eventually came to rule his own province and become a high minister. 20 years later his wife died of an illness and he returned to the capital, but the king said they needed to move the capital city and he was sent back to his home town.
He woke up and found it was a dream, and he dug up the ant nest and found it was the kingdom he had visited. He found another nest which corresponded to the province he had ruled. He fixed the nests as they were before, but that night lots of rain fell and next morning the nests were empty. --Kjoonlee 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
http://chineseculture.about.com/library/extra/story/blyrh12231999.htm --Kjoonlee 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for! -Elmer Clark 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ralli surname used by Punjabis

I wanted to know about the history of Ralli surname used by punjabis in punjab india.

The article genealogy has information regarding such research. -THB 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William IV of the United Kingdom

When Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom acceded the throne, some people in Scotland argued that the Queen has no right to style herself as Elizabeth the second in Scotland since there were no Queen Elizabeth I in Scotland. I wonder that did the same issue came up in Scotland when King William IV of the United Kingdom acceded the throne in 1830 because there was no King William III in Scotland. Could someone answer me? Thanks. --Joshua Chiew 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how "official" Scottish documentation referred to their James VI after he became King of England. --Dweller 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
He continued to be referred to as James VI in all legal documents, and in the Acts of the Parliament of Scotland. To have done otherwise would have risked confusing him with his ancestor. Likewise, his grandson was known as James VII, for the same reason. On your point, Joshua, there was, as far as I am aware, no recorded protest in Scotland to the accession of William IV, who, strictly speaking was William III of Scotland. In strictly legal terms he should have been William I of Great Britain, with the title dating from 1707, though the issue of regnal numbers was one reserved to the Crown. In general, the concern over regnal numbers really only emerged in Scotland in the twentieth century, with the increase in national consciousness and sensitivity. But to be perfectly honest, this is an issue that really only excites a small if voiciferius group of people. Clio the Muse 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As to Elizabeth II, the aforementioned protests from Scotland (or some other reason) led to the adoption of a policy: future Monarchs will be numbered according to the number of Scottish or English predecessors of the same name, whichever number is higher.--Rallette 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So the next monarch called James would be King James VIII? Can you link to an article about this convention? I'm interested to learn more. --Dweller 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Found it for myself at List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs --Dweller 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well grubbed, old mole! Actually, Dweller, there are some errors in that list: so, be careful, everybody. I seriously doubt that the royal family will ever choose the name James for a potential heir for all sorts of political, personal and diplomatic reasons. Consider this: the stage play The Madness of George III was changed to The Madness of King George when it was turned into a movie, just in case America asked about the Madness of George, parts one and two. Just imagine if England woke up to find itself ruled by James VIII. 'What happened', the cry will go up, 'to parts III to VII?' Revolutions are made from less. Clio the Muse 09:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer! Just curious... --Joshua Chiew 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812

The War of 1812 between Britain and the U.S. ended with status quo ante bellum. If the war ended with Uti possidetis, what territories would be gained/lost by the U.S.? Thanks. --Joshua Chiew 15:45, 27 November 2006

The British controlled Great Lakes shipping between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan by their capture of Fort Mackinac and they had occupied and effectively annexed parts of Maine. The U.S might have been in control of some British/Canadian assets but none come to mind. Edison 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Amherstburg, Ontario, for one. -- Mwalcoff 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer! Just curious... --Joshua Chiew 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Goth Rock and Punk Rock

What are the main differences that differntiate the two genres of music.... Both are a form of rock music.... yet i still cant diffenertiate between the two

I find Goth rock and punk very similar aprt from the dressing sense of the band members Goth rockers seem to prefer darker attitudes but thats all i know so far

please enlighten...........................

The article Gothic rock explains how it became differentiated from punk rock. -THB 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Aaah, a topic very close to my heart:) Ok, Goths wear lace and black with dyed black hair while Punks wear tartan and studs with mohawks. Goths are Andrew Eldritch of Sisters of Mercy and Robert Smith of The Cure, Uber Punks are Iggy Pop of Iggy and the Stooges and Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols. After glancing at those you should be getting the gist of how different the aesthetic is, punks yell a lot and make a mean face, Goths moan and weep and make a sad face. ;) Vespine 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone should add some pictures to the article so it's easier to understand the difference. --The Dark Side 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by goth rock? What bands, for example? I think of bands like The Cure and Joy Division as goth. Musically they use less distortion, are slower, and are more synthesizer-oriented than punk bands. Punk singers often yell their lyrics in a nasal way, whereas goth singers more often sing. --Grace 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The essential difference between them is that I like punk more than goth. Moonwalkerwiz 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Punk is poorly defined, and "goth" is a subgenre of punk, so it's even more poorly defined. We were called "punks" for having short hair in 1977. By 1979, the British were defining punk as one very specific type of thing. During all of this, various scenes developed their own variations. Echo and the Bunnymen, The Cure, The Fall, and others added some of the theatricality of art rock back into their punk, and Joy Division, of course, taught the UK what despair could be. Meanwhile or subsequently (depends on who you ask), not only were original punk acts introducing a different kind of theatricality (Talking Heads and Devo), but LA imitators (or not...depends on who you ask) began to take a wrist-slashing theatricality to the their punk, esp. by playing back up the Doors-styled song-as-psychodrama and the old drug scene music. I believe that "goth" got coined for the LA imitators of The Cure and Joy Division. What happened next is something I do not know, as I lost all interest in the name game. Geogre 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics CPI

I have multiple questions regarding the Consumer Pricing Index. And how the operating expense of a building correlates to the CPI.

-What are the components of the CPI-W / what does it track?

-What is the national average operating expense, and how does it rise compared to CPI trends?

-Could energy cost rise faster then CPI?

-Was there a study done that shows the relationship between CPI-W and operating expense tracking it from as far back as the mid 80's?

-What degree does cost of fuel change the operating expense?

Any help would be great. Thanks.

Start with Consumer price index. -THB 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] words created during the 1920s

i need to find words that were created during the 1920s that have something to do with advertising.

Not sure how good this is but (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=c.1920&searchmode=none) is a link (i think) to words created circa 1920. Words include T-shirt, cola, nostalgia - which reminds of a joke by Demetri Martin, in one of his sets he says "I remember when I used to be into nostalgia"...ny156uk 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the word "nostalgia" seems to date from 1678. Maybe a somewhat different meaning came into vogue in the 20s. JackofOz 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what are the most unpoplular buildings in Paris, France?

Parisians were asked what buildings they disliked the most. What buildings did they choose?

When? They used to hate the Centre Pompidou, now they hate the Opera at the Bastille. -THB 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
They've always disliked I M Pei's Louvre Pyramid (even before it achieved new-found fame with The Da Vinci Code). JackofOz 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression they disliked the pyramid until it was actually built, but that it is well-liked now. It certainly has made a difference in the comfort and convenience of visiting the Louvre. The Eiffel Tower was much-hated at first, but I doubt a majority of Parisians would vote to dismantle it today. -THB 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
People living near the Eiffel Tower have some reason to worry about metal fatigue. DirkvdM 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about the Bibliothèque nationale de France. It is fairly well, if not universally, disliked by Parisians. -THB 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We really need the results of a survey to answer the question. 8-|--Light current 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw on a commercial that the Eiffel Tower was almost brought down. It was only saved by becoming an antenna. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The new building of the Quai Branly Primitive Arts Museum isn't exactly consensual although some parts are definitely really cool. For the scale, architecture and symbol of what it stands for I'd nominate the TF1 (television channel) building. Keria 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us also mention the Jussieu campus. David.Monniaux 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strip club cruise

I'm starting my own strip club on the boat, we will be going to international waters. You can't get licences on land for it so im taking it off land. could you give me some legalitise I will need to take care of, I will be a first to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryaunna1980 (talk • contribs)

How do you expect to get the legal advice we aren't supposed to give you if we don't know where you are? Please consult a lawyer, and sign your posts with four tildes. -THB 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, if you think you are the 1st to do it, maybe there is a reason for that? You will definitely need a team of lawyers as you may even be setting a precedent, though I really doubt it! Stripping and boats have been around for a long time. "you can't get licenses on land for it"???? Where exactly are you? If you are thinking of doing this in the middle east somewhere, then I'd recommend a team of body guards and a small armed fleet as well as lawyers ;). Vespine 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
For a serious answer, I'd just do research on how off-shore casinos manage to escape anti-gambling laws by venturing into international waters. I can't see how your idea couldn't follow the same strategy. Loomis 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And I would guess that you, your customers, and your employees would enjoy little protection from the law. You won't be able simply to call the cops every time a fight breaks out.--Shantavira 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, UK Customs and Excise have a habit of fingering you as you get off the boat on British Land and ask you for the tax for all the beer/ciggarettes/other taxables the moment you hit dry land [1]. I don't know about other countries (the UK charges quite a lot compared to most countries on alcohol tax), but there's a good chance that wherever you live may do the same. Laïka 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait until pirates find out what you are doing!hotclaws**== 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Rock Candy Mountain- Charles Osgood

My Wife often speaks of a vinyl record album that she had as a child. It's supposedly titled "Big Rock Candy Mountain" and is narrated by Charles Osgood. It's theme, she reports, regards the environmental issue of waste/trash disposal. I'm guessing it was distributed in the early to mid 70's seeing as she was born in '74. Does anyone know anything about this.

Possibly this? dpotter 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
At Big Rock Candy Mountain I don't see any mention of Osgood. There were many records of the song from the 1920's to the present. Osgood might have ironically talked about the fancies of the song versus the reality of toxic waste in one of his CBS TV commentaries, but it does not seem likely that a record of him talking about toxic waste would have been very popular. As a song, Big Rock Candy Mountain needed no narration. Edison 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)