From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] February 14

[edit] Aust indigenous culture

question moved to science desk Julia Rossi (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starving or freezing to death

About homeless people who are cold and hungry: how many of them actually starve or freeze to death? I live in Connecticut, USA, and I do not remember ever hearing or reading in the news of such. Even for people with homes: how often does this actually happen?

I don't know about Connecticut, but I heard stories about this all the time in Alaska. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that early death arising out of poor health, attributable to poor diet and cold, would be a more common outcome than a classic frozen-to-death or starved-to-death. Perhaps I'm misreading the tone of your question: does this sort of foreshortening of life not count? And how likely do you think it is, in this celebrity & PR fluff obsessed media age, that the death of a homeless person would make the news? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]At least one homeless person seems to die of exposure in Boston every winter. According to this government source, 676 people died of exposure to cold in the United States in 2004. The same document shows that 39 people died from "overexertion, travel and privation". Privation would seem to include starvation. Starvation is very rarely reported as the cause of death in the United States, partly because food is so readily available, if you are willing to forage in dumpsters. However, this manner of living can lead to severe gastrointestinal infections or malnutrition. Malnutrition in turn weakens the immune system and renders people more susceptible to and more likely to die from diseases such as influenza or pneumonia or from infections and septicemia. So hunger or malnutrition almost certainly contributes to mortality in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how often they die happens in Toronto, but there is a magic temperature, lower than which the city starts sending out special homeless patrols to make sure they are either off the street in shelters, or have enough blankets and food. And although they were not homeless, a couple of weeks ago, two children in Saskatchewan died of exposure, basically by walking outside for too long. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Six homeless deaths in Belfast in an 18 month period. 45 in the greater Dublin area in the same period. That's about one a week in a wealthy island of 6 million people - BBC News story, 17 Nov 2007. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's an upper limit, as it doesn't mention cause of death. Quite possibly a large portion of them did die of exposure or starvation, but not necessarily all. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, February 14, 2008.

I couldn't tell you what they actualy died of, but I saw plenty of dead ones during cold spells in the south of Russia. AllenHansen (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Differs by country. A British cabinet minister was discussing matters with a Scandinavian counterpart and asked how many old people died of hypothermia in their homes every winter, as the UK was trying to reduce the numbers. The Swede/Norwegian/whatever suspected mishearing: in civilised countries, a person might die by getting caught out of doors, but not freeze to death inside one's own home. Alas, such is indeed the case in the UK. (Sorry no ref -- a few years ago, early Blair or late Major) See fuel poverty. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spring is often a horrific time in Moscow, as over the winter, dozens of homeless people die but are often subsumed by falling snows before they can be discovered, only to be found en masse in the spring as the snows melt. Ninebucks (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with List of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve.

I am trying to find sources and photos for this list I created. I have searched the internet, but came up with nothing. Currently I need:

• Roy A. Young - birthdate/photo
• Charles S. Hamlin - photo
• William P. G. Harding - photo
• Daniel R. Crissinger - photo
• Roy A. Young - photo
• Eugene Meyer - photo
• Eugene R. Black - photo
• Marriner S. Eccles - photo
• Thomas B. McCabe - photo
• Arthur F. Burns - photo

I think that is it for now. If anyone can help out, it will be appreciated. PGPirate 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to our own stub on Roy A. Young, his birthdate was May 17, 1882. Here is a photo of him. Here is a photo of Charles S. Hamlin. I am in the process of searching the others. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is WPG Harding. Here is Eugene R. Black. Here is Marriner Eccles. Here is Thomas B. McCabe. And here is an image of Arthur F. Burns. Sorry that I was not able to find photos of the others. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Roy A. Young article doesnt have a reference to his date, that is why I havent used it. I would assume those photos are Public Domain. PGPirate 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giotto and Arena Chapel

did Giotto paint the scenes from the Passion of Christ for the Arena Chapel to serve as images for the service of the stations of the cross?Hinesandy (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. They was just part of a series of images about the life of Christ. You can compare the difference here: Stations of the Cross and here: Arena Chapel. Saudade7 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More JC-1 H2 Economics help needed

Hello! It's me, the JC-1 H2 Economics student, again. Last time I asked a question about why my lecture notes always use the phrase "ceteris paribus". I checked last week and couldn't find my question or an answer. Anyway, this week I had a lecture about Price Determination, which is supposed to tie together what I have learnt about Demand and Supply. Two questions:

1. I know that if demand increases when the market price is at the equilibrum price, there will be a shortage and the market price will rise to a new equilibrum price, while if demand decreases the equilibrum price will be lower and the market price will drop to the new equilibrum price. For supply, if it increases, the equilibrum price goes down and if it decreases, the equilibrum price goes up. What if supply and demand change at the same time? Of course, if demand increases and supply decreases at the same time, prices go up and if demand decreases and supply increases, prices go down, but what if supply and demand both go up or both go down? My lecturer showed a large table which is difficult to understand and remember.

2. We learnt about Wage Determination, which is a type of Price Determination. My lecturer said there were four factors affecting supply of labour in an economy. The four factors are the size and composition of the population, the retirement and school leaving age, monetary and non-monetary rewards and mobility of factors. What does "mobility of factors" mean?

OK, now I have to rush to another Economics lecture about Elasticity of Demand. I think I will be back with a few more questions later or tomorrow. See you, and thanks to those who answer my questions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.91 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can answer question 0. Ceteris paribus is Latin for "other things being equal", or in other words, it basically means that a prediction will be correct "if we've mentioned all the important changes" that produce the predicted effect. --Anonymous, 05:38 UTC, February 14, 2008.

The earlier question you could not find is now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 21#Basic JC-1 H2 Economics help needed (again). If you create an account, you can use the account to look up your earlier contributions, which are all over the place now and possibly mixed with contributions by others, what with your changing IP addresses (165.21.155.8, 165.21.155.11, 165.21.155.13, 165.21.155.15, 165.21.155.16, 165.21.155.91). It is also appreciated if you sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end or clicking the signature icon () if you have an edit toolbar.  --Lambiam 07:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "factors" very likely means "factors of production" here. Land and natural resources are largely immobile, but both labour (the workers) and capital (money) can move around, nationally and increasingly internationally. If such motion is possible, it tends to be to the places where most money can be made. Much production has moved to Eastern Asia because of low wages there, meaning larger profits. As wages go up because of demands by organized labour, capital can move out, decreasing the demand for labour and thereby depressing the wages. Under unlimited and unconstrained global mobility of all factors, you would expect wages to settle at the same wage levels everywhere.  --Lambiam 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this image, supply increases to S2, but if D moves outward as well in the same manner, the new equilibrium will be at (Q2,P1). Note: this image was made to illustrate something else, (Q2,P1) is not marked on the graph.

In addition to Lambiam's answer, factor mobility is not only the ability to physically move the factors of production (e.g. how willing the labour force is to move to the other side of the country), but also the ease of conversion to another type of production. For example, how easy it is for a worker in the petroleum industry to become a banker the next day. Or converting a factory to an office building, or switching production from toilet seats to teddy bears. A word that encompasses both senses of "mobility" is reallocation.

If supply and demand both increase with the same amount, the price remains the same but quantity increases. If supply and demand both decrease with the same amount, the price remains the same but quantity decreases. This is assuming they increase and decrease in the exact same manner, otherwise something in between happens. Also note the difference between increase in supply and increase in quantity supplied, which was answered in your last question :) User:Krator (t c) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now I understand ceteris paribus. Thanks, Lambiam, for linking to my previous question! I will think about creating an account.

So if supply and demand both go up or both go down, the price remains unchanged? And "mobility of factors" means how easy or difficult it is to move workers and resources around and use them for different things?

Two questions about Elasticity of Demand:

1. When I use the formula (%change in quantity demanded/%change in price), why am I always supposed to get a negative number?

Because demand should increase (+ve%) as price decreases (-ve%), or demand should decrease (-ve%) as price increases (+ve%). Both yield a negative number (+5%)/(-5%) = -1

2. Is price elasticity about how fast the price changes, how much the price changes, both or something else?

How much the demand changes, as a result of price changes. Now go here & read & read again. (Ignore the heavy maths in the middle if you're not into heavy maths.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

--165.21.155.89 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] famous late starters?

Can anyone help me name a famous classical musician that learned how to play their first instrument after twelve years of age? It seems like every person who has been successful in the classical scene learned music before ten or eleven. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts. This is a discussion about Arcadi Volodos. Apparently, although he had piano lessons from ag-e 8, he never took it seriously until he was 15, and had never considered being involved in music until then. He's made up for lost time since, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Late_bloomer#Music help? How about Leos Janacek? Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Remember, we're talking about learning musical instruments, not just learning music theory - technically quite different things, although they're normally taught in conjunction. Janacek came from a family of musical amateurs. He was taught by the choir-master Krizkovsky for 8 years from the age of 10, but exactly what he taught him isn't stated in any of the references I've seen. At age 20 he entered Skuhersky's organ school, but I find it hard to believe he'd never touched an organ or piano keyboard, or any other instrument, prior to that. A good biography would shed light on this. Also, the human voice is the most perfect instrument of all, but I guess the questioner wasn't talking about that. Bruckner seems to have had his first lessons in playing non-voice instruments after his father's death, when he was 13-14. Between that age and 15-16 he learned piano, organ and violin. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Bruckner, who grew up in a musical family, already learned to play the violin and especially organ (and probably also piano) as a child, and he occasionally even played the organ during masses during his childhood. (I will check this in a published bio to be certain though). He is often presented as a late bloomer because he didn't pursue composition (or music in general at a professional and academic level) until later in his life. I'm sure we could find other examples of late blooming composers, but I haven't been able to come up with musicians of great notability as performers who didn't learn to play their instrument at an early age. I can think of several examples outside of classical music, but that doesn't fit the question either. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Checked in: Karl Grebe, Anton Bruckner, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972, ISBN 3-499-50190-2. There might be sources with greater authority, but that's the one that happened to be laying around) Apparently Bruckner's father wanted to see Anton's musical education in competent hands, and thus entrusted Johann Baptist Weiß, a distant relative and a respectable educator and organist, with this task in 1833, before Anton's ninth birthday. Bruckner seems to have practiced the organ industriously, learned about church music by composers such Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, etc., and (unknown to me) even composed his first work at the age of twelve (Four Preludes in E-flat for Organ). Back to the late starters, maybe an example could be found among wind instrument players, particularly brass; many good brass players I know (though, again, I can't think of any famous classical ones) didn't start to play their instrument until their teens. But even here, most had learned about music, notation, and performance on other, physiologically less challenging instruments such as the piano or recorder, before they picked up the trombone or trumpet, and the querent is asking about examples who learned to play their first instrument at a later age. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article about pianist Harold Bauer, it implies that he took up the piano as a teenager. But it doesn't actually state that; more research would be called for. Herbivore (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a special case in that, although he became best known as a pianist, he started out as a violinist. He performed in public on the violin at the age of 9. At 19 he started serious study of the piano, at the encouragement of Paderewski, who gave him some lessons. Paderewski would hardly be likely to be giving piano lessons to someone who'd never touched the instrument before, no matter how well he may have played the violin; so I assume he must have been playing the piano from an earlier age, and showed sufficient promise to attract the interest of the likes of Paderewski - something he would not have achieved overnight. But exactly how early and to what level are questions my references don't answer. So Bauer the pianist might qualify as an answer, but Bauer the violinist doesn't, and the violin was his "first instrument". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! The third brass player I looked up seems to fulfill your criteria, more or less. This site (you have to click your way to the bio) suggests that Maurice André was thirteen before he started practicing the cornet. According to the site: "1944, WWII compelled Maurice's father to send his son far from Alés, in Lozère, a very rural department. This is where young Maurice began to study solfeggio, during two years, before having touched one single instrument." ---Sluzzelin talk 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not having consciously listened to, let alone watched André recently, I browsed through youtube's selection. There are some stirring performances of baroque and early classical music, but the clip that really caught me in surprise, was a duet with Dizzy Gillespie, two muted, bent trumpets gently humming "Manhã De Carnaval". [1] ---Sluzzelin talk 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outcomes

An odd question perhaps but did the nazis ever invisage the political shape of the post war world after their defeat? Be Ce De (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They certainly planned beyond defeat... see Operation Werewolf. Xn4 09:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Official propaganda never moved much beyond notions of 'final victory', even up to the very last moment, but you can pick up traces of the possible shape of things to come in various magazines. There is never any direct reference to the destruction of the Nazi state, of course, but there is comment on the coming end of the British Empire, possibly intended as a secret consolation for their readership, along the lines of 'If we go, it goes.' In 1943 Das Schwartze Corps printed a cartoon of Churchill declaring his intention to preserve the British Empire, while standing in the pocket of a giant Roosevelt. Kladderdatsch, clearly seeing a post-war world divided between the USA and the USSR, depicted Churchill as a disgruntled waiter, serving Roosevelt and Stalin. The caption has Roosevelt saying, "You can fetch us two more whiskies, John, and then you can leave us alone." This theme was taken up by Simplicissimus, in its comment on the outcome of the Teheran Conference in 1943. Churchill is depicted in a cartoon as little hunter setting out in the company of Stalin and Roosevelt as two large cannibals. In the background Eleanor Roosevelt is shown stirring a large cauldron-style cooking pot, while one cannibal says to the other "If the hunt is not a success we have always got Fatty here." All in all, a reasonable prognosis. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Be Ce De means the defeat of the world. In Mein Kampf, Hitler envisioned Germany would rearm in contravention to the Treaty of Versailles in the first stage. The alliance of Germany, Fascist Italy and UK declaring war on France and her allies in eastern Europe in the second stage. Germany would defeat Russia for it's Lebensraum in the third stage.

In 1928, Hitler suggested that around 1980 to achieve world domination for the master race, Greater Germany and the British Empire would ally to defeat United States.
Sleigh (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

Is it true that this law refunds tax payments up to $600? Surely people making $60,000 a year pay much more than that, so why the (very roughly) $100K limit on income? Imagine Reason (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. It seems to imply an inconsistency in the law or its intent, but I don't see it. The law refunds tax payments up to $600 for individuals, plus $300 per dependent child. The law phases out these refunds for individual taxpayers with incomes over $75.000. The income limit has no relation to the limit on the amount of the tax rebate. The purpose of the income limit is to target the rebates to taxpayers of low to moderate income. The reasoning is that people of low to moderate income have pressing needs and are more likely to spend the rebate than those with higher incomes, who may be likely to save the money instead. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the Pop/Alternative Band from maybe Sweden? Switzerland? With like 30-40 members?

Men and Women, look like they are having fun, had a video on YouTube with a Chalkboard in it....they stand in a sort of sloppy chorus line or sit in swivel chairs and spin or prance around sillyly (neologism a la moi) and wear vaguely emo-retro shirts.(?) Merci d'avance! Saudade7 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not The Polyphonic Spree? They're American, but otherwise the description vaguely fits. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be spelled "sillily" -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be looking for I'm from Barcelona, who are from Sweden /Kriko (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I am at school and thus not signed in but this is Saudade7. I am happy to report that the answer is I'm from Barcelona, and so thanks Kriko ! I couldn't remember! Also, thanks AnonMoos for the correction to "sillily" which makes spelling sense and surprises me because I didn't think it was a word at all! Thanks Richardrj for being a nice person. 128.32.209.2 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (as Saudade7)

[edit] American newspapers' endorsement of Presidential candidates

I understand that the most respected newspapers in the USA would include the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. A quick read of those articles tells me that the NYT is broadly liberal in outlook, while the WSJ is broadly conservative. Presumably, therefore, they would tend to endorse Democrats and Republicans respectively in Presidential elections. I have a few questions. Firstly, when the elections are at their current stage, with various contenders slugging it out for the nomination, do these newspapers endorse one or other of the contenders? And, if so, do they only endorse one or other of the contenders for "their" party, or would they express a preference for the other party's nominee as well? Finally, and more generally, is there any evidence that the endorsement of a respected newspaper has any effect on the outcome of Presidential elections? Note, by "endorse" I mean to state a preference for one particular candidate in the paper's editorial column or leading article. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here is the NYT's endorsement of Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago, and here is their preference for John McCain among Republican candidates (same date). I found these links at Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2008. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin. That clears up all my questions except the last, I think. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be hard to find evidence regarding your last question unless some political scientist has done an empirical study on it. As a politically engaged American, I would say that the endorsements of these newspapers probably do have a marginal impact on the outcome. If a voter is undecided and respects the newspaper's editorial page, the arguments on that page might sway his or her decision. That said, I would think that the number of people who might be swayed by either newspaper's endorsement is probably quite small. Most people make up their minds independently. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval twins

Can you give me any examples of some famous pairs of identical twins from the Medieval period? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List_of_twins#Historical_twins has:

• Berenguer Ramon II, Count of Barcelona and Ramon Berenguer II, Count of Barcelona, born in 1054.
• Waleran de Beaumont, Count of Meulan and Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, born in 1104.
• King Henry II of Castile and twin brother Fadrique of Trastamara (killed 1358).
• James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas and Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray (b. 1426)
• King James II of Scotland and Alexander Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, born in 1430.

I don't know whether they all were identical twins though. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that twins just weren't mentioned very much...since they still didn't really understand conception, they assumed that twins meant the mother had been impregnated by two different men. It was also much more difficult to deliver twins, since mother and baby had a pretty good chance of dying even if there was only one. I wish I could remember some sources for this; I'll keep looking. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Who has ever assumed that twins have different fathers? Algebraist 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was a superstition that twins meant two fathers, I don't know if that was widely believed (or just generally trotted out as an old wives' tale). Certainly, Nicholas Orme (in Medieval Children) makes no special qualification for twins (that I can find: poor indexing results in no listings for twins, although glancing through the text provides several) He refers quite casually to the baptism of twins and triplets (p 35) and begins his discussion on birth with a reference to the fictional Josiane's delivery of twins in Bevis of Hampton (p 13). Siamese twins (and triplets) are not unknown, and experts debate if they are one or two children (and thus how many baptisms they require) (p 97). Turning to another book I've just grabbed off my shelf, ("Daily Life in Medieval Times", by Joseph and Frances Gies no WP page; for their credentials, see this), we discover a reference to the above superstition followed by the example of Jean Renart's 13th C romance Galeran de Bretagne, where a lady trots out that superstition to accuse a vassal's wife after she gives birth to twins, only to give birth to twin girls herself two years later. (p 257). This seems to indicate a 13th C recognition of the superstition as nonsense. Furthermore, Gies & Gies point out philosopher/scholar Michael Scot (12th C) claimed that multiple births were normal, and could go up to 7. However, the incidence of living twins would have almost certainly have been less than today due to birth complications. -Gwinva (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a letter between Innocent III and Clement of Osney about an adulterous woman bearing twins; if it doesn't refer to this superstition, then at least it is more evidence of medieval twins! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to have twins by two fathers (heteropaternal superfecundation) see: [2]. Must be here. Ah yes, under the cunning title Superfecundation. -Gwinva (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WARFARIN USE??.

Question removed for asking medical advice. See the discussion page for more information. -- kainaw™ 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not give medical advice on the reference desk. Most of what we can say about warfarin has been said on the article page - Warfarin - notably "in order to optimise the therapeutic effect without risking dangerous side-effects, such as bleeding, close monitoring of the degree of anticoagulation is required by blood testing". The fact that warfarin is used to kill rats is not relevant (except to rats, that is). --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two strong candidates from one party?

In U.S. history, have there been instances where a presidential primary campaign has seen two equal-strength candidates as we're seeing with the Democrats? How did they turn out in the general election? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article on brokered conventions is a good reference for this, referring to the condition when a party reaches its convention without having a foregone nominee. FDR was the last candidate to win the Presidency after a brokered convention. — Lomn 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Doesn't lift my spirits, but YMMV. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that it's comparatively rare. The examples (latest being 1952) all predate both the modern primary season and the round-the-clock media circus. I personally don't think many useful parallels can be drawn on such little info. — Lomn 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1984 Democratic race between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart was extremely close and not decided until after all of the primaries. Same with the 1976 Republican race between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. The 1980 race between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy was a clash of titans, although Carter won most of the primaries. Note that in each of those cases, the party with the hotly contested primary lost in November. A bad omen for the Democrats? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In neither of those two cases were the rivals united on the eventual ticket. So I'm hoping anyway! Imagine Reason (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question form de.WP: Why do american presidential candidates point on persons with their finger before starting to talk?

Gesture like this: [3] or [4]

Hi, we have a question at german wikipedia: When american presidential candidates enter a election campaign event, they seem to point with their finger on imaginary people, like: "Hey, nice that you are also here!". What is the ambition of this behavior? Has it a historical background? Question from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auskunft#Seltsame_Politikergeste_.28USA.29 . Greatings --84.166.94.229 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe to copy Uncle Sam? (See the poster in the linked article). Wrad (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I only see democratic candidates do this, and not republicans - is this a factor?87.102.114.215 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are sometimes acknowledging especially enthusiastic supporters or people they recognize. Recury (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common American hand gesture. While our article on the topic says that pointing is rude in Western cultures, this is not necessarily so in the United States. A person may point to communicate messages such as "I see you", "That's an interesting point you made" or "In response to the point you made". Also, teachers and preachers often point from the podium/pulpit to acknowledge students/members of the congregation. It is a visual way of establishing a connection from the speaker to the listener. Politicians probably do it to show that they are "connecting" to voters. The gesture is probably more common among African Americans than European Americans and is probably also more common among Americans of humble backgrounds. Therefore the gesture is less likely to be used by Republicans, whose target audience is more white and more affluent. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also recalling seeing it several times in sports and among young people, either acknowledging fans or as a substitute for the words "You're the man!" So yeah, it acknowledges supporters and gives them some credit for success. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm cynical enough to imagine that many of the politicos we see on our screens have been schooled to do this, to demonstrate the connection they have with their audiences. Seen from Europe, the gesture comes across as an insincere & contrived. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians tend to give me that feeling no matter what they do... Wrad (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians are trained in gestures. Obviously Obama got the "finger-pointing" coach where Hillary got the "thumb-point" coach. She makes a barely-closed fist with her thumb on top and points with the thumb to accent her words. That has been popular since Nixon was trained to do it after he did that "grip of death" on the podium in the first televised elections. Perhaps Obama is being trained to point differently to make us think he isn't really a politician. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She got that from her husband who got it from JFK. See "Clinton Thumb" in the above mentioned hand gesture article. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kerry had yet another coach, the "make a fist, smile, and then extend your arm"-gesture-coachEvilbu (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first person I personally witnessed using this pointing gesture was David Lee Roth, on the Van Halen tour in 1984. It's an effective way to get people exicted, because when you point into the crowd, 50 different people think, "Hey, he's pointing right at me!" Modern American political rallies and rock concerts have much in common. —Kevin Myers 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it goes back further than that. How about Babe Ruth calling his home run? Wrad (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated. —Kevin Myers 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? Baseball players do it all the time now, and it causes a similar reaction. It could easily be related in some weird way. Can't really prove it either way. Wrad (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could it derive from press conferences? The President points at reporters to recognize them during press conferences; so do others. Has this action been transferred to the stump speech? --NellieBly (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's popular enough for parody; some comedians invited to late night talk shows do it emphatically while walking in, often using both hands in parallel for extra emphasis. And, as an example of a parody of the parody, in The Office, Series I, Episode 6, self-delusional and ever inappropriate wannabe comedian David Brent does it while walking in front of an audience of employees, half of which believe they have been "made redundant" and feel betrayed by him. The pointy gesture can symbolize friendly connection and familiarity (or faux connection and faux familiarity) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mustn't forget "Saturday Night Fever"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Several of the previous posters have stated that this gesture is typical for US politicians. It is interesting to see that most older European politicians make exactly the same gesture, but with a clenched fist, as if they are pointing with an amputated finger. The only finger that is pointing at the audience, is the thumb on top of the clenched fist. The younger generation of politicians, however, does point at the audience. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fall of the romanovs

in what way did alexander the third contribute to the fall of his dynasty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebadee0 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, why do you assume that he did contribute? Is this a homework assignment? AllenHansen (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By being the father of his son! Sorry; I'm being facetious...well, perhaps not entirely. It might be best if I had written by giving example to his son, an example not fit for a complex and troubled empire, emerging into the twentieth century cloaked in an ancient garb. Zebadee, for you and anyone else who really wants to understand Tsar Alexander III, to understand the nature of the man, and the regime he created, I would suggest that if you are ever in St. Petersburg you should visit the Marble Palace, where you will find a huge bronze equestrian statue. Grotesque in proportion and appearance, it was meant to create an impression of awesome autocratic power. But no sooner had it appeared than people started to call it 'The Hippopotamus', a name it has carried ever since. And here it is [5], towards the bottom of the linked page! When the sculptor himself heard of the popular reaction to his work, after it rode into the world in 1909, he said "I don't get into politics. I just depicted one animal on another."

You see, the Hippopotamus is a perfect symbol for the Russia of Alexander III, in all of its colossal immobility. In his determination to preserve the autocratic character of the state, Alexander moved firmly away from the path of reform, previously pursued by his own father. Although the Russian economy-and Russian capitalism-developed rapidly during the period of his rule, the state became ever more repressive and reactionary. Amongst other things the powers of the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, were considerably increased. The 1881 Statute of State Security, which Lenin later described as the 'real Russian Constitution', extended extraordinary authority to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, allowing it to prohibit gatherings of more than twelve people, close schools and universities, and prosecute any individual for perceived political crimes.

Besides reinforcing the apparatus of repression, Alexander also decided that the path to national salvation lay in further measures of Russification, carried on at the expense of the Poles and other minorities within the Empire. The Orthodox Church was promoted above all others, and Russia's large Jewish minority, confined within a designated Pale of Settlement, was subject to increasing levels of persecution and discrimination.

But it was in the countryside that Alexander's reactionary policy was at its most damaging for the long-term prospects of the Romanovs. Peasant self-government was undermined by giving increased powers to the zemstva, dominated by the nobles. Still worse, Alexander II's rural reforms were effectively rendered meaningless by the appointment of the so-called Land-Captains, officials answerable to the provincial Governor-Generals. These Land-Captains had the power to overrule peasant courts and remove peasant officials. They could also arrest any of the peasants under their authority, fine them or even subject them to corporal punishment. For the peasants the system was so oppressive that many were convinced that serfdom was being restored, especially after 1893, when they were banned from leaving their local mir, the communes within which they lived.

Alexander had the character, the stature and the will to force his model of autocracy on Russia. It was an example he bequeathed to his son, Nicholas, always in awe of his formidable father. He filled the mind of unimaginative Nicky with all sorts of outdated notions and values. The last of the Tsars was a man filled with good intentions; and with these he took the road to hell. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Clio. Wow. What an excellent and complete answer! --Emery (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your generosity, Emery. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I’m indebted to you for that delicious quote from the sculptor Trubetskoy, which I shall add forthwith to my list of favourite insults. Btw, the Trubetskoys were a pretty fecund and prominent gang, and this particular one was the oddly-spelled and Italian-born Prince Paolo Troubetzkoy. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad to have been able to add to your very interesting collection, Jack. If you ever need any more insults I have heaps of them, some entirely original! Are you familiar with Dorothy Parker's retort on being told of the death of Calvin Coolidge? That is one of my favourites. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How could they tell? Yes, I know it well - what a wit that woman was! Any other pieces of choice invective are always welcome, from all comers. I collect them so as to educate myself about how to always appear to remain civil when having a really nasty point to make. (No, not really) For, as Oscar said, "A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"If with the literate I am/Impelled to try an epigram/I never seek to take the credit/We all assume that Oscar said it." That was Dottie P as well. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are there any countries where cocaine is legal (not a legal question).

This is not a legal question and I am not soliciting legal advice.

Are there any countries where cocaine is legal? Our article on Legal status of cocaine is pathetic, listing about sixteen countries, and saying just "most" countries have made it illegal.

Should that be "all countries"? There are 196 countries or so. Is cocaine legal in any of them?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cocaine_-_Legal_status/id/1239325 pakistan for one, it may be legal (small amounts) in columbia (law may have changed)87.102.114.215 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You also have to differentiate between "illegal to possess for anyone at any time" and "illegal to possess without valid authorization". Cocaine is still used in nasal and throat surgery according to emedicine.com, and it's not illegal to use in this way. --NellieBly (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question Regarding CAIR

I've been reading up on the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and its sub article of Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as CAIR's nay saying websites like Anti-CAIR.org and Americans Against Hate.org. I know that several prominant US Congressmembers has questioned CAIR, and that there have been allegations that CAIR refuses to condemn certain global atrocities, most notable the various Sudan conflicts. So my question: is CAIR a legitimate organization, such as through its Press Release, or is it a moderate Islamic group that secretly funds terrorist actions? Any less well known (and legimate!) sources would be apprecaited. As always, thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any credible claims that it directly funds terrorist actions as a group, but there have been accusations that it was founded as an outgrowth of a Hamas support network in the U.S., that it effectively favors rigid narrow Wahhabite interpretations of Islam, and that a number of the figures closely connected with it have quasi-extremist affiliations and/or have made statements that are far outside the mainstream of U.S. politics -- which is a problem, since it tries to present itself as a mainstream political lobbying group, parallel to respected and established Christian-based and Jewish-based lobbying groups in the U.S. See further my past remarks at Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)