Humanities desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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.

May 26

Third parties in the US

Why Americans don't vote for third parties? For example people having left-leaning economic view and liberal social view can vote for the Green Party, people having right-leaning economic view and liberal social view can vote for the Libertarian Party, people having social conservative views can vote for the Constitution Party. They get votes, but they never won election, this means most people prefer the two major parties. Why? --Reference Desker (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that third parties tend to focus on a narrow range of issues, and so they lose people who care about other issues... another is that third parties tend to take a hard line stance on the issues they do focus on. While this attracts those who care deeply about those issues, it leaves the vast majority of Americans, who are actually relatively moderate in their politics, feeling alienated. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the American electoral system works "best" with two parties: because the winner of the largest percentage of the votes is the overall winner, it is often true that voting for your preferred candidate can result in the victory of your least preferred candidate — if you choose a third-party candidate instead of the major party candidate that you'd be more likely to vote for, you're effectively subtracting your vote from the total of your preferred major party candidate. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About all third parties can do is screw things up. For example, in the Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman Senate race a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Duverger's law. Voting for a third party in the U.S. winner-take-all plurality-wins system may be seen as helping the person you least want to win by splitting the vote on your side of the political spectrum. This is exactly what happened in 2000 when the non-right-wing vote was split between Al Gore and Ralph Nader. Also, voting for someone who has no chance of winning is considered "throwing your vote away." Third-party and independent candidates generally only do well when the candidate is already well-known or has a lot of money, making his or her election not completely out of the realm of possibility from the beginning. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also happened in 1992 and 1996, when Ross Perot's entry helped to get Clinton elected and then re-elected. Supposedly Dole pleaded with Perot not to run in '96, but he did anyway, helping to syphon votes away from Dole. The all-time master screw-job might be the 1912 election, in which the GOP defied logic and renominated Taft. TR got more votes than Taft, but by going with the unpopular choice, the GOP basically handed the Presidency to Wilson. Oops! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider voting for a third candidate to be "throwing your vote away". I believe that any candidate who wins more than 5% of the vote is eligible for federal funding. Does anyone know when this last happened, though? Eliyohub (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPTP doesn't explain everything. UK has FPTP and has regional third parties, and a third party on an ideological basis (Libdem). Why are there no regional monopoly third parties in the US? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. On the regional issue, I would say it's my sense that no region of the US really sees itself as a separate nation in the same way that Scots nationalists do. The closest would be the South, but there is little desire by now to relitigate the Civil War. (Note though that George Wallace's party did indeed capture five southern states in the 1968 election — that was probably the closest thing to a competitive regional party since at least World War II.) I am not sure what makes the difference between the competitiveness of the LibDems and the absence of any similar competitive party here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was around the time that the "solid south" was transitioning from Democratic to Republican, as the two parties seemed to have switched places ideologically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a smaller scale, the Vermont Progressive Party has a few seats in the state legislature and their founder was elected to the Senate as an independent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrsdogg (talk • contribs)

I think it's because of what Reference Desker said, that third parties tend to be too narrowly focused, and most folks don't really trust them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that third party candidates tend to lose so voters don't see much point in a vote for a person effectively destined to lose (it's self fullfilling, people don't vote for them because people don't vote for them.) (Disclaimer, this is just my opinion and I can't cite sources for it.) RJFJR (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo mentioned that the UK has FPTP and more than two parties. So does Canada, where there are at least four major parties and several significant lesser ones. And while Bloc Québécois clearly has a regional focus, the other three do not. The recent federal election there shook up the relative power of the four parties quite a bit. Perhaps a factor here, in addition to FPTP, is the difference between Westminster systems and the US system (Presidential system?) In the US system presidential elections (and I assume the question is about electing presidents, as their have been and currently are third party governors, members of Congress, etc) aggregate votes to the state level, so whole states vote for a candidate (with rare exceptions). In the Westminster system, as I understand it, the people do not vote for the Prime Minister, rather for the MP of their local electoral district (riding in Canada)--something roughly equivalent to a Congressional district in the US (this is why US presidential election result maps color the nation red or blue by state, while Canadian federal election result maps color by riding, never by province; sometimes US result maps show states by electoral college strength, but that merely shows the voting strength of each state; people do not vote for specific electors). While this alone doesn't explain why the US is so dominated by two parties, I suspect it is an important factor. Imagine if in US federal elections you did not vote for president, senator, and representative, but only for your representative. I suspect under such conditions it would be easier for third parties to get a foothold in the sytem. Pfly (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more like a parliamentary system. In fact, it used to be more that way. Until about a hundred years ago, Senators were elected by the state legislatures rather than by the citizens directly. And we still vote for electors for President, not directly for the President, as it's really the states, via the electoral college system, that choose the President. The influence of third parties, historically, has been to splinter the votes and to elect the opposite candidate. That's why third parties don't work. Now, if you had a third party that was truly distinctive from the other two, and popular, they might have a prayer. Libertarians would like to fill that void. But their views, taken in total, are generally at odds with the electorate, so they really have no chance to win separately, but only as "conservative Republican" types. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the matter of how electoral districts are defined, and in particular the effect of Gerrymandering. This produces (and in some cases is explicitly designed to produce) a duopoly. In many US states the delineation between electoral district is performed by a commission composed mostly or entirely by elected politicians, so they're deciding on the boundaries that elect either themselves or their friends. Rather than fight about it, you often get bipartisan gerrymandering, where the two parties agree upon (really sometimes downright insane) boundaries that systematically produce unassailable majorities for both, and cut out anyone else. If you were to design a system for fairly and sensibly drawing these lines you'd probably come up with something akin to the Venice Commission guidelines, which roughly amounts to "recognisable communities, cognizance of historical lines, selected by an impartial group"). In that light, if you consider the California 38rd shown to the right, or the similarly bonkers California 11th) you can't see a rational reason to draw the boundaries the way they are. Look at the committees who do the choosing - rather than politicians, the UK uses the various Boundary Commissions for the job; they're Quangos, so while not entirely beyond political influence they're not stuffed with politicians. Contrast, for example, the members of the Ohio Apportionment Board (all elected politicians) with the Boundary Commission for Scotland (a judge, a retired civil servant, and a business woman - no politicians (bar the nominal speaker)). The results are evident in the maps of the two - note the bizarre configuration of the Ohio 6th and 13th (map) vs the fairly rational equivalent for Scotland here). Federal courts have intervened only in as far as lines are drawn to disfavour ethnic groups, and most states don't have laws that explicitly forbid this (see [1], where several have laws that explicitly permit incumbent protection). Why does this matter for third parties, or voters who are disillusioned with both parties in the duopoly? As there are so few genuinely marginal districts there's nowhere for another party, or for independents, or single-issue parties, to survive. Large built-in majorities encourage extreme candidates (the primary is bitterly contested, not the general election) and make defecting to another party, or going it alone, suicide. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at File:NC-Congress-12.PNG the map of NC's 12th congressional district, which is even more of a "salamander" than was the original "Gerrymander". The purpose of that district was to give a collection of black voters a voice in Congress. Whether that kind of thing really works well, or tends to isolate, is debatable to say the least. But it's been that way for awhile now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California's redistricting law has changed, so now the redistricting is to be done by a commission consisting of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and their charter calls for them to design compact districts based on communities. We'll see how that works. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that third parties do not win are several-fold, and not as innocent as some of the previously given reasons. First of all, the media certainly does portray third parties as marginal and irrelevant; however the critical question is 'do they portray this because it is reality, or does the reality form because of the image promulgated by the media?" So too, for the organizations that sponsor debates. They limit the participants based on who is a viable candidate. However, if we don't get to see them in a debate, then how can we really know who is viable? Obviously the two-parties have a duopoly; however what is not obvious is all the things they do to keep the duopoly. All election reform takes place within the context of the two-party system, so any reform of the negatives that arise as a result of the duopoly are never discussed, nor addressed. The existence of the electoral college also contributes to filtering out third parties, and in fact, any convoluted voting system more complex than simple majoritarianism will necessarily contribute to minimizing third parties. Also, the talented campaign management and staff tend to gravitate toward one of the two parties, rather than fight uphill for a "fringe" third party. These people have careers to think about. In the end, the biggest reason is $$$. Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reasons why Duverger's Law applies more in the U.S. than in Canada or the U.K. Firstly, the U.S. has a lot less party discipline than the Commonwealth countries. That means a Democrat in California can take different positions from a Democrat in Alabama. It doesn't work that way in the U.K. or Canada, which is why you get parties like Canada's old Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, whose members had to form new parties when the national parties wouldn't go along with their views. Second, the U.S. has long had primary elections in most states. This allows an "outsider" candidate to run for office without having to run on a third-party ticket. It's a lot easier to win a major-party primary election and then use the party's resources to win the general election than it is to win a general election on a third-party ticket, unless you're very wealthy. There's also the attitude that people like Ralph Nader should have run in the primary of the major party closest to their views instead of splitting the left-wing or right-wing vote by running in the general election. Finally, the end of the two-party systems in Canada and the U.K. was largely due first to socialism and then to separatism. The U.S. has always had less attraction to socialism than most other countries, and separatism has pretty much been a dead issue in the U.S. since 1865. Also, the three major parties in the U.K. are now so close ideologically that one can switch parties without worrying that the evil boogeyman party on the opposite side of the political spectrum will benefit from a vote split. This is not the case in America, where the Republicans and Democrats remain very far apart on basic issues. When the British Labor Party was really left-wing, the Liberals didn't win many seats. If the Canadian Tories move farther to the right and the NDP proves that it has staying power, I could easily see Canada bifurcating into a two-party system as has happened in B.C. and Saskatchewan. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the Republican and Democratic parties have instituted all sorts of laws at the state level which make it hard for thrid parties to get on the ballot, requiring them for example to obtain a certain number of petition signatures in every county to get on the ballot and to lose ballot standing if they fall under a five percent vote.

Note that long standing policy on presidential debates held that anyone polling above 5% nationally would be included. Ross Perot participated in the 1992 debates on that basis and garnered a %20 popular vote. Then the debate committee, chaired by three democrats and three republicans, cahnged the threshold to 15% in five major polls and excluded Perot from the 1996 debates as "not a serious candidate."

Blame the extra-constitutional collusion of the two incumbent parties. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct etiquette

Hello all, me again :) I recently volunteered at an event but forgot to wear socks (as I usually don't wear them); luckily my guidance counselor had anticipated that someone might forget and brought a pair of his own to lend to me. What would be the correct etiquette to return them to him? I am interested in particular in the details of how I would word it; i.e., the only response to "Do you want these back?" would be "You can keep them", but I don't really feel right keeping them. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Launder them; then (2) return them at your next opportunity. If he says "keep them", then keep them... maybe in your glove box, in case of a similar situation in the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, buy several new pairs, and send them to him, with thanks and a suggestion that he hand them out the next time the situation arises. If he does this regularly, as seems evident, it is more likely to be appreciated. The appropriate response to an unexpected gift isn't 'repayment', but an indication of appreciation of the intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be culturally specific though. Some cultures value acknowledgement through a directly related material intermediary (multiple pairs of similar socks); other cultures have ritualised acknowledgement mechanisms like greeting cards or flowers. Australia, for example, sometimes has an idea that "Australian native flowers" are in some ways more appropriate to give to men than other flowers. Working class cultures often use beer as a method of acknowledgement in Australia. "A slab" (24 x 375mL, 4.5% beer) is a good way of acknowledging the favour materially without demeaning the volunteer spirit in which someone else did you a work related favour. If you paid them you'd be making them "work"—fixing someone's computer or motorcar might be worth a slab. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But beware of overthinking what ought to be a natural, simple and spontaneous gesture. I agree totally with Baseball Bugs on this occasion.

Just on the flower thing: A woman could give a man flowers in this sort of situation and get away with it not being seen as a come on. But a man giving another man flowers, even native flowers? No way, unless there's some sort of sexual chemistry going on, or hoped for. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to comment similarly on the flowers. That would be a cultural thing. Unless it's culturally normal for men to send flowers to each other, stay away from that. I like the beer idea... provided that the OP knows that the guy likes beer and which brand. But giving the guy a bunch of new socks really sounds like the ideal and safe thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch held left-leaning views while he was a college student and supported the Labour Party. When the shift in his political view began and why? --Reference Desker (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the pre-Tony Blair Labour Party, the Labor Party is a centre party albeit with a small Left faction and a small Centre-Left faction. The Right faction controls the Labor Party.
Sleigh (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the "Labor Party" you're referring to is the Australian Labor Party. Whereas, the "Labour Party" you mention is the Labour Party (UK). True? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He ended up in conflict with the leadership of Oxford Labour group; Gerald Kaufman tells the story of how he investigated Murdoch for breaching a ban on canvassing for executive post (recounted in [2]). Soon after that, his father died, he returned to Australia, and he became managing director of News Limited. That seems to have been the spur to the change in his political views; as the Rupert Murdoch article states, by the mid-1960s, he was a consistent supporter of John McEwen, although he briefly backed Gough Whitlam. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business Cycle Graphs

Where can I find the time-series data used to generate graphs like ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorstein90 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start with OECD, or official statistics services for individual countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did George Washington whip his slaves?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to George Washington and slavery, "As on other plantations during that era, his slaves worked from dawn until dusk unless injured or ill and they were whipped for running away or for other infractions." However, it's likely the whipping was done by the slave overseer rather than by GW himself. Pais (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even Jefferson, for all his noble rhetoric about a self-evident inalienable right of liberty for all humans, failed to live up to these high ideals with respect to his slaves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a reference for Jefferson saying he believed in the "inalienable right of liberty for all humans" including non-Caucasians, slaves and women? Or did he believe in liberty for free white men? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Words by Jefferson (with help by Benjamin Franklin), emphasis mine. Now if he meant it to be that inclusive is debatable, but he certainly wrote it using inclusive language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, an earlier draft of Jefferson's declaration said, "Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative [veto], suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." (Emphasis in original.) These views didn't stop Jefferson from profiting from slavery both financially and sexually. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's you point, Mwalcoff? That clause had NOTHING to do with an anti-slavery postition. To quote from one of WP's articles: "The clause was the opposite of "anti-slavery" -- it complained about the freeing of slaves. The clause did complain about King George vetoing attempts to put tariffs on the slave trade -- an economic not moral issue in Jefferson's Virginia, where the slave trade was diluting the value of slaves-as-property. Georgia and South Carolina needed slaves-as-workers, and thus opposed Virginia's proposed tariffs on slaves.[4] Jefferson expressed outrage that the Virginia tariff was vetoed, and with florid rhetoric called George a hypocrite (in effect) for supporting the slave trade -- but that wasn't the relevant point: The clause was included in the section of the Declaration concerning war grievances, and its specific grievance is that, following Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, England was granting freedom to runaway slaves who joined the army. So, as opposed to being "anti-slavery," the clause complained about the freeing of slaves."76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how did TJ feel about the rights of women? How did he reconcile "all men" being equal with his owning slaves? Edison (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect TJ didn't even imagine the idea of (non-widowed) women having equal rights independent of their husbands or fathers. So he probably was neither for nor against equal rights - they were not even part of his mental landscape. Whole books have been written about Jefferson's hypocrisy of owning slaves while proclaiming liberty for all. He was always in favour of emancipation in theory, but eventually resigned working towards it in practice. He would not or could not free his own slaves without a general emancipation (which would have been either gradual or included compensation). Jefferson was deeply in debt, many of his slaves were mortgaged for a lot of the time, and he wasn't consequent enough to do what he could at the price of personal ruin. Not a perfect human being, but then, who is? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington had a very low estimate of the willingness of his 300 slaves to do a day's work, of their honesty and of the ability of his overseers to make them work. The overseers whipped the slaves after giving Washington reasons, in writing why the whipping was needed. "It is easy to say 'the overseers whipped the slaves.' But if Washington gave permission, he might as well have wielded the lash." "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America"(2004) By Henry Wiencek, page 111. He apparently also had female as well as male slaves whipped on occasion, since he wrote: "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper, and if She or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." "George Washington and slavery: a documentary portrayal" (1997) by Fritz Hirschfeld, page 36. While President, Washington was criticized for not providing adequate food for his slaves. Yet "the lot of the Mount Vernon slaves was a reasonably happy one" perhaps by comparison with the worst establishments. "George Washington: Farmer"(2004) by Paul Leland Haworth, pages 98-100 . Edison (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

complete list of "common" urban services and memberships

RefDesk is not for playing games

the followng are by no means esoteric: - gym membership - dry cleaning service

I would like a complete list of every by no means esoteric urban services and memberships that a man or woman in their thirties living in an urban center like London and making an average (close to the median) salary would be likely to have/use. I'm just interested in, say, the most common 50. 94.27.243.9 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Services and memberships" is rather vague. Would you include financial services ? health services ? transport services (season tickets, Oyster cards, Boris bikes) ? store cards ? baby-sitting circles ? book clubs ? postal services ? milk rounds ? waste collection ? internet shopping ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have statistics but other possibilities would include: public library, online DVD services (Netflix/LoveFilm/etc), professional organisation (for lawyers, engineers, accountants etc), trade union (for teachers, lecturers, nurses, civil servants, etc), sports club, university or school alumni association, political party, membership of organisation devoted to particular leisure interest (e.g. Camra for beer drinkers, Ramblers' Society), DVD/video game rental store membership, supporters club for sports team, membership of discount store (like Costco), membership of campaigning organisation like Greenpeace or Amnesty ... --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OP again here). Absolutely! Every one of these qualify. We are very far from the top 50 though, and nowhere near extremely common services like a tanning salon, or getting a freaking haircut! Both of which are in common use. Actually, I think these rank way, way, above something like supporter of a sports team - after all, what working adult doesn't get a haircut! 94.27.134.217 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have the list below so far. Please keep adding to it! The later you get to a more common service (common being defined as in use by a greater number of working adults in the UK -- specifically London, let's say -- in their thirties and making around the median wage, the more points you lose. So, if it takes you till #49 to mention electricity - a service everyone uses - you lose a lot of points! Remember, pretty much everything you would exchange money for except receiving a product is a service in my defitition. Anyway, keep adding to the list! Try not to lose too many points...

1.  financial services (bank)
2.  health services (your GP, etc)
3.  transport services (season tickets, [[Oyster card]]s, [[Boris bike]]s)?
4.  store cards
5.  baby-sitting 
6.  book clubs
7.  postal service
8.  milk rounds
9.  waste collection
10.  internet shopping
11.  public library
12.  online DVD services ([[Netflix]]/[[LoveFilm]]/etc)
13.  professional organisation (for lawyers, engineers, accountants etc)
14.  trade union (for teachers, lecturers, nurses, civil servants, etc)
15.  sports club
16.  university or school alumni association
17.  political party
18.  membership of organisation devoted to particular leisure interest (e.g. [[Camra]] for beer drinkers, Ramblers' Society)
19.  DVD/video game rental store membership
20.  supporters club for sports team
21.  membership of discount store (like Costco)
22.  membership of campaigning organisation like Greenpeace or Amnesty

Don't forget tolls, parking fines, speeding fines, driver's licence, television license. Change Internet shopping to Internet connection.
Sleigh (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP is what you're actually saying that you already have such a list and you're judging us volunteer RefDesk helpers by our ability (or otherwise) to match the items on your list? Sorry not playing your little game. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was being metaphorical - I have no such list, just a few hunches. Actually, I am very disappointed in the REFERENCE DESK not being able to give me a more definitive resource. This isn't ___-__, this is the aggragate list of services in use by MILLIONS of adults, sorted by the number of them who use it, and taking the top 50-100. I don't have such a list. I want one! Sorry I wasn't more clear. 188.157.253.76 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printing of the one dollar (USA) bill.

Why is there no article (even on Documentaries like History Channel, etc) about the very small printed spider on the front of the U.S. one dollar bill and why it's on there? Thank you.76.93.186.28 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't noteworthy. Look at the pattern along the bottom of the front of the bill. You will see the same thing in the repeated pattern in the background. Simply because most of the repeated pattern is blocked by the shield around the 1, you get some people assuming there is an owl or spider there when anyone with a tiny bit of observational skills can plainly see it is just part of the repeated pattern. -- kainaw ™ 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"anyone with a tiny bit of observational skills can plainly see" is a bit of a put down of the OP, Kainaw. It wasn't necessary to go to such extremes to make your point. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you going to kick him in the grammar too? What does "bit of skills" mean? 188.157.253.76 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printed patterns can sometimes seem to show things that weren't necessarily intended to be there. For example, the U.S. 20 dollar bill can be folded in ways that its back appears to be connected with 9/11.[3] Another example (maybe intentional or maybe not) is the subliminal "arrow" contained within the Federal Express logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FedEx logo is far more properly classified with things like the previous Big Ten Conference logo, being the deliberate[4] incorporation of specific symbology in negative space, than with after-the-fact manipulations such as the $20 bill. For those not familiar with US collegiate sports, the Big Ten famously retained its name after accepting its 11th member, thus the incorporation of "11" in negative space. The new logo for the now-twelve-member Big Ten is just silly. Ditto the ten-team Big 12. — Lomn 02:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the 9/11 dollar thing, there was a similar, but much more amusing trick you could play with the old £10 note... Mix the Queen with Charles Dickens on the reverse, and... hey presto! Her Maj becomes John McEnroe. --13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And on the last pound (£1) note, Isaac Newton had a Toblerone beside him for some reason[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture of the spider (in my opinion, the Toblerone is better). Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a book

I remember hearing about a book (nonfiction) that gave tips on how to read someone's writing and infer things about their writers from the minutiae of how they use language. These inferences are very circumstantial of course and must be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems like a useful skill to have. Does anyone know what book this might be? I'm not looking for a specific book, just one that broadly matches the description. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (EDITED TO BE CLEAR)[reply]

Start with the article graphology, and if you want to go further, there are references there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no, sorry I think you misunderstood (my fault). I mean writing as in the content and how the language is used, not the text itself. Sorry for any confusion. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic linguistics? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography may not be what you're after, but it shares similar interests. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close reading might be ... close. --Sean 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be literary criticism or stylistics (literature). 92.24.191.98 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should simple living / minimalistic living seen as liberal or conservative?

Good evening Wikipedians.
On the one hand, simple living seems liberal, as it breaks away from the "normal" consumeristic norms of society (with antropocentric consumerism being generally accepted, or even expected from people, without any questions asked).
But then again, simple living is actually an old concept dating from the days of yore.
Now that we are on the topic, could ANY counterculture, no matter how old the concept (e.g. grunge, gothic), be seen as liberal? Even Victorian Revivalists?
Thanking you in advance,
Suidpunt (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're using the liberal/conservative dichotomy as understood in the United States? It needs to be understood that neither of those is actually a philosophy. They're both coalitions. The conservative coalition in particular has some very philosophicallly disparate elements that really can't stand each other (the libertarians and the social conservatives have almost nothing in common except for some common enemies). So it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask how to apply the terms to things other than politics. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't talk for the US, but the "simple life" has always been regarded as a conservative thing here in Europe. There was one such back-to-basics in pre-War Germany, but I can't recall its name. Volk-something I think. However, with the rise of "hippie" ideals, then the communes were both both back-to-basics and an extension of liberal values to an extreme. So I guess either would be appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Völkisch movement, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple living" implies thriftiness, which is what I would associate with "classic" conservatism. There are very few of those kinds of conservatives around anymore. In fact, the concept pretty well died in the U.S. after World War II ended and prosperity finally came after 15+ years of deprivation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people who subscribe to this ideology while holding political neutrality. They base their thriftiness on the example of Jesus who said to "“If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come be my follower” (Matthew 19:21). Jesus also subscribed to the ideal that "'It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’'" (Luke 4:8). Thus it is entirely possible to be minimilistic and to be neither conservative nor liberal (in a political context). I myself do my best to do this, but sometimes I like stuff too much. Schyler (one language) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a factual answer to this question; there are both liberal and conservative people who live simply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, simple living, which even has a "Politics" section. As it points out, the political party or viewpoint that probably comports most with the concept is the Green Party, which conservatives typically despise as an ultraliberal extremist fringe wacko group. On the other hand, simple live-er Ted Kaczynski seems to have hated leftists, as well as modern society in general. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least the Green Party is anything but Liberal. Bunch of Stalinist control freaks more like...

ALR (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think it's important to point out that "left" or "center-left" does not imply "liberal" in any philosophical sense. That's part of what I was getting at in my first response. The political coalition called "liberal" in the United States includes a few genuine liberals (the ACLU, for example), but also has elements that are not particularly liberal (trade unions may or may not support protections against arbitrary State power), and some that are really rather anti-liberal (such as the supporters of identity politics). These last usually don't self-apply the L-word, but call themselves "progressive" or some such. --Trovatore (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple living has traditionally been seen as conservative, with early well-known examples of such views including the tendency of educated classical Athenians for Laconophilia. (Their position was in opposition, to some extent, to what they perceived as the material and political excesses of radical Athenian democracy. The Spartans had more kings, less money, a great deal less clothes, no fine cuisine, and no impressive architecture, so were just generally more conservative all round.) A number of Greek texts around this era and earlier lament the profligacy of the young, their lack of respect for tradition and their elders, and so forth. As a slightly more modern commentator (it might have been H. D. F. Kitto) observed, one can easily find a spiritual affinity with the "conservative" ancient Greek commentators, until one finds that the "unnecessary luxuries and extravagances" were things no more excessive than the use of chamber pots as an alternative to having to visit the nearest field during a rainstorm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in present day Greece [6] the Conservatives are opposing the public spending cuts advocated by the Socialists. Meanwhile in Brazil, [7] the Communist party has amended the law on preserving the rainforest, to allow small farmers to make more money. It's all a bit confusing. Card Zero (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why Surigao del Sur is one of the poorest province in the Philippines?

Since the inception of the province of Surigao del Sur to the present time , its boundary road from that of Surigao del Norte known as Noventa or KIlometer 90 could not be fixed properly to the dismay and suffering of its populace who traveled to Surigao City for health, business , official or other related reasons. Much worst during rainy days and the presence of mining companies in the province, many of the potholes before became a great risks for travelers and transportations alike. When could this problem end? Not until we get honest and dedicated government officials as contrast to the previous corrupt ones who only enriched themselves. Please help our province improve by fixing our roads as it is mandatory for commercial, business and health purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.191.131 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the reference desk for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. If you have a question whose answer we can look up for you, that is our function. We can't help you fix your roads, and we can't even really help get the word out. You need to contact your elected officials, or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper; or perhaps you should run for office yourself, get elected, and adjust the province's spending priorities yourself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Quote on 9/11 monument @ New York New York, Las vegas

Does anyone know the exact quote and source?

Do not follow a worn path (path well tread) Make a new path and leave a trail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave-n-rose (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling seems to come up with "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". --

And here's a discussion of the source: not Emerson. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the link, but as a general rule of thumb, if it wasn't Emerson, it was Thoreau. 188.157.184.168 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link says "I WILL not follow where the path may lead, but I will go where there is no path, and I will leave a trail" in My Little Book of Prayer by Muriel Strode, The Open Court Publishing Company 1905 and in another work in 1903. However there were several other claimants at around the same time - none of them were Emerson or Thoreau. The exact wording above ("Do not follow...") seems to date from the 1970s. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League Colleges

I am a high school student and I've received a lot of mail from colleges interested in me because of my ACT and SAT scores (both only a smidgen from full scores ;) inviting me to take campus tours, giving me posters, online registration, etc. Do Harvard and Yale do this (send mail to students they're interested in) too? Or is this only a characteristic of the "lower colleges"? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call schools that aren't "Harvard and Yale" lower colleges. There are many other colleges (some of them public schools) which outrank Harvard and Yale in many, many rankings. --Jayron32 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Ivies do send that kind of information to prospective students. However, receiving it doesn't mean you have a shot at being accepted. I read an article recently about how prestigious schools send out lots and lots of stuff like that knowing that few of the recipients will get in in order to lower their acceptance rate and seem even more prestigious. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All schools "recruit" to various degrees, but at the highest end of things it is often by underrepresented demographics or geographic area, rather than just raw scores alone. (The number of people in Southern California or New York who get near perfect scores must be quite large; the number in Nowhereville, USA, is quite small.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of advertising from small specialty liberal arts colleges with unique programs is typical. If you have any in mind you would do very well to investigate them with a tour ahead of time, and understand their reputation. Cornell offer(s/ed) early decision application. They put you in contact with an alumnus. Consider taking summer courses at a college that interests you. Large big name schools usually have much more diverse opportunities than small schools. Smaller schools are better for artists and writers who are looking for individual mentorship. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ivy League schools send this kind of mail as well. Regardless of whether or not you have a chance of getting in, they're making money of your application fees. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]