November 11

I was disturbed by some of the comments people of various ethnic groups around my area were saying so I created the following scenario to see whose view people tend to agree with.

The city of Townville is composed of exactly 50% X people and 50% Y people. The city council has thirteen seats and of those X people have eight while Y people have five. Traditionally the X people ruled over the Y people, but that time of segregation ended many years ago.

Two men were talking one day, their names were Abe and Ben. Abe, who is a Y person, thinks that a lot of X people are supremacists and still hold on to their traditional beliefs (that they are superior). To that end he declares that the city council is biased against Y people even today and that X people only let them on the council to remove any allegations of racism. Ben, who is an X person, thinks that the council is fair, does not see a problem with the council elections, and thinks that Abe is the real racist for making such a big deal out of the council composition.

Who is the real racist? --The Dark Side 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's kind of difficult to decide in this case, since the example you've given is taken out of a real historical context. If we were talking about a real, existing council, then it would be easier to see if there is racism, since we would only have to analyze the history of that council. Saying that the X people traditionally had ruled over Y people is not enough to establish racism in this case. The X people in the council should have their own history how they got there, and also the Y. But since the situation is incomplete, it is impossible to provide any judgment. Moonwalkerwiz 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the population is evenly split why the imbalance in representation? Anyway, divide the council seats between the two sides, and make the Convenor an XY person. Clio the Muse 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moonwalkerwiz; it depends on whether the X people really are supremists or not. But Clio, 8 and 5 are pretty close numbers (only 7 and 6 are closer). --Bowlhover 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bowlhover. But my point was that the seats (this is getting silly!) be divided evenly, six for one side and six for the other, with a 'racially' mixed Chairperson holding the odd one. Clio the Muse 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the approach of apportioning seats based on ethnic, religious, and cultural differences. As long as elections are fair, anyone should be allowed to be elected to any seat. This won't produce a council which exactly matches the population, but you also won't get incompetent candidates who were elected "just to make the numbers work out". StuRat 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)(Edit conflict again & again) I really didn't feel like writing alot at that time. When I say "the X people traditionally had ruled over Y people" I mean a situation like that of the United States during the early 20th cenutry. All councilors are democratically elected to the council, but there may always be a lack of candidates of certain groups. --The Dark Side 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always best to deal with specific cases. Abstractions only beget abstractions. I would really have to look closely at the specific examples you have in mind to determine why certain people were underrepresented. Clio the Muse 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If X=old and Y=young gives rather a different slant to the issue and proves context is everything. MeltBanana 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say either of those people are 'racist' based on only what you have said.

If X tranditionally 'rulled' over Y, did once hold the belief that they were superior, and there used to be segregation...then i'd assume the Y people would have been treated as inferior during the time of the segregation. In that case, you really can't blame the Y people if they still feeling a sense resentment towards the X people. An non-equally compossed city council would be a very obviously thing to complain about.

So i don't think Abe is 'racist' for his/her complaint. Whether the council is biased would be a subjective thing, unless of course, there actually is hard evidence. Of course, this also depends on how much of a 'big deal' Abe is making out of it. If it's just complaining to other people, then i wouldn't really call it racism.

The council itself having more X people is not something i'd consider racism either. I mean...if there're 13 seats, the only fair approach is 6 each and someone of mixed blood. Beyond that, 7-6 is the fairest you're going to get. So i really don't think 8-5 is very 'unfair'. Of course, this depends on exactly how fair the electons actually are. --`/aksha 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a bit racist to assume that the X and Y populations will vote along racial lines, and takes no account of the candidates themselves or the social setting and local demographics of the voters themselves beyond racial make-up. Robovski 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that the The Dark Side's question itself has underlying racist premises? Moonwalkerwiz 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is a real democracy, the people don't seem to vote purely on a racial basis, because else there would also be a 50/50 division in the council. In such a true democracy, Abe's remark doesn't make any sense because it's the people who decide who get in the council, not the council itself (that would be silly, wouldn't it?). Bringing up the subject has a racist streak, but nothing too serious, I'd say. Unless there is something else going on here that we don't know about. Also, what happened in the past is (or should be) irrelevant. Every country has bad things in its history, almost always with some racism, but it's the people now who have to live together. Learning from the past doesn't mean getting stuck in it. So again, the fact that Abe raises this point is wrong, but it's not blind racism. He just needs to be 'put right'. DirkvdM 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict - this was a reply to Moonwalkerwiz:) That's not how I understand Robovski's statement. Unless you say that talking of racism is itself racist.

I think The Dark Side did a good job in abstracting the question. Of course, as others pointed out, real life is more complex (has more context), but I still think it's an interesting challenge. What does Wikipedia have to say?: "Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences ... determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." The first part does not apply to the thought experiment since neither Abe nor Ben assert their superiority. The second part does not apply in an absolute way, since neither says they should rule because of their race. But it can be applied in a relative way: If we compare it with the democratic ideal, then, ceteris paribus, Abe argues that his faction should get more power than their share of votes. But of course, the context is important, and being once bitten twice shy is only human, so I would think twice before I labelled someone who has made bad experiences with a harsh word like "racist". — Sebastian (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info is indeed incomplete, but here is my interpretation of what has been said. Neither side is racist. The Y person is very defensive about the things that have happened in the past, and the X person doesn't understand why. The Y person looks at things from a race-oriented spectrum; meaning that if both sides are truly equal, then there should be equal amounts of both races on the counsel. The X person looks through a talent-oriented spectrum; meaning that people should be elected for there skills, not to keep the races balanced. Intentional or not, this has actually provided a fairly accurate representation of the two sides involved with the

I'm trying to find some good sources for the article Acts of the Apostles. I find a lot of sources that reference a widespread viewpoint that Acts is "bad history" or that refer to its author as a "poor historian". This artice, for example, has an extensive bibliography of all the people who doubt the historicity of Acts, and the views that Acts wasn't even supposed to be viewed as history. But despite all the references to this view, I've had a hard time finding good online sources that actually CONVEY and explain this view, rather than just mention it.

The article needs good 2-3 paraphgraph overview of why people would refer to Luke as a "bad historian". Why do they? Can anyone do better than I in finding a good online source? Or will I have to resort, god forbid, to ordering some printed books and just referencing them.

Once source that looks promising is here, but requires subscripton. If anyone has access to it, you could email me the pdf-- email is my username @yahoo.com. --Alecmconroy 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I wouldn't object if anyone wanted to send me a copy of the Brittanica on Acts. --Alecmconroy 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take at this question seriously you are really going to have to examine the printed sources. That's certainly what I would do-sorry. Deus vult. Clio the Muse 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, but that just puts my other editors at a disadvantage, because they can't see what sources i'm relying on. --Alecmconroy 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only source you really need, is the fact that most of the people who wrote the New Testament were martyred. Do you seriously believe they would have died because of a lie? |

Talk | Sign Here 00:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

How does that logic apply to suicide bombers?Edison 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that suicide bombers believe in their causes; what would be the point of throwing away their lives on something they didn't believe in. To them, it's no lie. To us, it is something other than the truth. Different things. JackofOz 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people have died for religious beliefs that Christians would consider at the very best a "lie" and at worst the most evil blasphemy possible. The deaths of the early Christian martyrs are absolutely not evidence that the events discussed in the Acts are accurate; they're only evidence that those who died believed they were accurate.

One reason why many people believe the Acts are not accurate is that some of the information in them does not agree with contemporary Roman writers, most of whom had no animus whatsoever against the Christians. Most classical writers claim that only a few hundred Christians were massacred by Nero and that Nero massacred tens of thousands of non-Christians for similar reasons - as punishment for events he saw as being caused by "the displeasure of the Gods". --Charlene 13:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Still, I doubt Nero didn't kill thousands of Christians; did the Romans leave records behind? |

Talk | Sign Here 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Charlene. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about Nero, but I have a feeling that you might be exaggerating his homicidal record just a tad. Who were the tens of thousands of non-Christians he massacred, and who are the classical writers who have recorded these massacres? Clio the Muse 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out their site: http://www.patrimoine-religieux.qc.ca/bndmtl/bndmtle.htm. It also has a number you can call. Cbrown1023 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one at 5:00 PM but I'm pretty sure it's in French: it has been every time I've gone and their schedule doesn't indicate that this has changed. Ditto for Marie-Reine-du-Monde.

Saint Patrick's (also at 5:00) is probably your best bet if you're looking for an English mass on Saturday in the downtown area. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

See if you can find an answer in the Music of China. Clio the Muse 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more likely to find an answer in Cultural Revolution. Long story short, pretty much anything Western (as well as Classical Chinese) was viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. --ByeByeBaby 07:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to turn things around for a good perspective. How did Chinese (traditional) music do in the West at that time (or now, for that matter)? It was a fringe phenomenon at most. Did Western governments give such performances an unfair chance (say, subsidising Western opera but not Chinese opera) or was it simply a choice of the people? If Chinese opera would have started to take inroads at the expense of Western opera (however unlikely), how would people and governments have reacted? Look at the reaction to the rise of foreign influences in Western countries right now. With the headscarf as one of the silliest examples. DirkvdM 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, your comment indicates that you don't understand what the Cultural Revolution was about. It wasn't about replacing Western culture with Chinese culture, it was about replacing the old (things from the "imperial past") with the new (things for the "communist future"). An anti-intellectual movement was also prominent within the CR. StuRat 09:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, it has become increasingly obvious to me since I have become involved in the RD that you are on a rather tiresome political crusade. I completely agree with the above comment in this matter: you clearly have a very poor understanding of the Cultural Revolution. What you have added here, moreover, has no relevance to the point under consideration. In democracies people have a clear choice over their preferences in the arts; that is the whole point. I cannot imagine my government, or any government with a sense of humour and perspective (and an eye on saving money in the arts!), being unduly concerned if the affluent middle-classes suddenly took it into their heads to be bored rigid by tedious Maoist epics instead of yawning their way through ninteenth century grand opera. It would make a nice change from Wagner, I suppose. Clio the Muse 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Wagner (and, in particular, The Ring series) has become synonymous with "bad opera". Every TV show that wants to show a miserable husband being dragged along to something "intellectual" (and incredibly annoying), by the wife, always portrays a fat, unattractive woman in full Viking armor, conical metal breasts, shield, horned hat, and pigtails, screaming out the song at the top of her lungs. And, without Wagner, what would become of the expression "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" ? Would it become "it ain't over 'til the svelte Chinese lady sings" ? :-) StuRat 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not about the cultural revolution in general but about how a government treats music, in this case giving preference to one type of music over another. I now have to double guess what you think that I think, but I assume you thought I was trying to defend the Cultural Revolution. But I wasn't. I was just putting it in perspective. To understand something it helps to find an equivalent in one's own culture (and my apologies for assuming the questioneer is a westerner). Btw, Clio, ever been to a (heavily subsidised in the Netherlands) classical concert? Many people there are bored to death because they don't give a shit about the music and only attend it so they can say they they were they and to see who else is there (see and be seen). DirkvdM 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think you understand the Cultural Revolution. It wasn't about showing preference for Chinese music over Western music, it was about executing and beating anyone "intellectual" or associated with "old China". To argue that the West does just the reverse is insulting to the West and to the millions who died in the CR. StuRat 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think you understand the question. It was about music, not the cultural revolution. You started that discussion. Damn, I just made a promise to Jack to be nice to everyone today. Then again, any sarcasm between us is always rather tongue in cheek, so I don't think I have broken my promise just yet. :) DirkvdM 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question most definitely is about the CR: "What was the effect on Chinese (Western) classical musicians in China during the cultural revolution ?". The answer, I suppose, is that many of those musicians were executed. The rest lost their jobs, were beaten and/or imprisoned. StuRat 08:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Loomis will now step in again to point out that he only gives answers when he has factual knowledge, in stead of guessing. I guess not, but then I don't know this for a fact, so there I go again. :) DirkvdM 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahhh. With your birthday coming up and all, it wouldn't be nice of me to further pick on you. Btw, what are your plans for your b-day? My suggestion is that you call in to work sick and take the day off. You deserve it. :-) Loomis 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use up all your niceties, it isn't my birthday yet. :) DirkvdM 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a performance of Shostakovitch's

Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk at the Bolshoi in Moscow last December, and succesfully managed to suppress my yawns! Incidentally, if you really want to know how certain kinds of state respond to art you could do no better than read the article in Pravda-thought to be by Stalin himself-after the first Moscow performance of this opera in 1936. I have a copy and will happily quote it at length, if you wish (on your talk page, of course) Clio the Muse 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

See The Red Violin. Literally see it. -THB 10:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Oops, am I now being a snob? :) DirkvdM 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I may have some very scant knowledge, here and there, with regards to the Maoist "Cultural Revolution", I don't have nearly enough knowledge to offer anything of use to this discussion. And so I won't. Loomis 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear me, was that irony? :) (no, this wasn't meant as an unfriendly remark, just an inquiry). DirkvdM 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a copy somewhere, watch (and listen to) From Mao to Mozart: Isaac Stern in China as well. ---Sluzzelin 14:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at

Try Mike's Guitar Site. ---Sluzzelin 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add to my list ;Balfa waltz,Parley-nous a boire,Pa Janvier and Le danse de mardi gras?

Video games are reviewed and rated on several online sites. The numerical ratings are under categories such as gameplay, innovation, sound, replay value and "tilt". What does "tilt" mean? To me, it means only an unacceptable technique when I played pinball.66.213.33.2 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what context is it found? I think it might mean something like errors and bugs slipping in into the final process, a low score would mark a game with so many bugs it's almost unplayable, middle score possibly some irritang bugs under certain conditions, etc. Anyway, that's my guess... 惑乱 分からん 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess (judging from GameSpot's ratings) is that "tilt" is just a reviewer's personal bias. There are some games which may have very good technical design and production values, but the reviewer just doesn't quite like the game for an unexplained reason. The more common interpretation is when a game's production isn't quite up to par, but the reviewer still really likes it for whatever reason (I think Doom 3's ratings were somewhere along those lines). Virog_{It's not}^{my fault!} 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes somewhat sense, tilted to/inclined to... 惑乱 分からん 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's closer to the pinball meaning...the ability to cheat in the game, using bugs, hidden codes, etc. StuRat 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virogtheconq is right. "Tilt" is the reviewer's chance to factor in "untangibles" if he thinks the computed score is not quite representative of his opinion of the game. -Elmer Clark 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a piece about my musician friend Bobby Perry. He is a smooth jazz and blues musician of great talent. He desserves to be mentioned here. There is a basketball player who is also named Bobby Perry and after I added my friend's name to the jazz musicians list and clicked on it the basketball player came up. I have two questions: 1. Where do I add my biography of Mr. Perry and should I do anything special given this possible conflict? Thank you, Patricia Kirkbride

Short Answer: You could create (and link to) Bobby Perry (jazz musician)--71.247.105.54 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just create Bobby Perry (musician), unless there is some musician in another genre with the same name. StuRat 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That too--71.247.105.54 20:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:NMG first. —Keenan Pepper 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If you create the article and it doesn't follow these guidelines, it will likely be deleted. --Charlene 12:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many people of Sierra Leone will $6 million feed in a single year?69.110.40.192 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the food, and the price of it. It also depends if you want them to merely survive on meager rations (like combat rations) or to eat something reasonably nurishing. If you really want to make a dif then provide them with the means to earn enough money to pay for food or to grow their own food. If you merely give food you will have to provide them with a equal amount of food next year. "Give a poor starving man a fish and he will eat it and beg for more. Give him a fishing pole and teach him how to fish and he will feed himself" Something like this is actualy a Chinese saying. Of course this is always easier said than done. Flamarande 23:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to add in the cut for the warlords. Assume they take 80% and you are only feeding the people on $1.2 million a year. Of course, if the people start getting too much food, they'll just take a higher cut. --

(talk) 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

And if you donate to some charity organization don't be really surprised if a "reasonable amount" is diverted to pay for the members of the organization itself (among other things). I remember a TV report that the leadership of a certain Charity organization (I sincerly don't remember the name) absolutly "had" to have the latest Mercedes and live in a major mansion. Flamarande 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US anyway there are restrictions on this. Only give to charities which have legal

non-profit

status if you are worried about corruption by the charity (warlords are another issue entirely). Organizations which don't keep careful books risk their tax exempt status or worse.

If Sierra Leone is anything like the other Sub Saharan West African countries I visited in 1989, then one can live off half a US dollar or less per day, foodwise (I compensate for the fact that I bought ready made food in the streets, which will be more expensive than cooking oneself with food bought in bulk). So say at most 200 US$ per year. So 6 million should feed at least 30 thousand, if you don't count in transportation and preparation costs. A very rough guess. DirkvdM 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the income of US megachurches, what is the percentage that is given to the poor via outreach programs?

That depends entirely on the church. I do not know of any law requiring a church to make its finances public knowledge. --

(talk) 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Televangelists give quite a bit of money to the poor, from A/C for their poor dogs to cash handouts (in exchange for certain services) to drug dealers and prostitutes of all genders and races. It's always nice to see them giving back to the community. :-) StuRat 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer, Stu. I can barely type for laughing. Durova^Charge! 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 02:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, StuRat is correct. -THB 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, this is just a false stereotype. We tend to hear about the Jim Bakkers etc of the world because of their gross hypocrisy, which is good press. We never hear about the vast majority of others who we have to assume practise whatever it is they preach. JackofOz 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stu mentioned televangelists specifically. Given their overall track record he's not far off the mark. I don't think that constitutes a slur against the clergy of large churches in general. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, about televangelists specifically, there are many more who "do the right thing" (whatever that is) than those who don't. We hear about the relatively few rotten apples, we never hear about the others. I am definitely a "glass half full" person, but I'm sure the statistics would bear me out.JackofOz 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they have a much higher rate of immorality compared with other professions, however. Here's a list of a few of my favorite televangelists and their scandals:

Ted Haggard:     Using drugs and having secret gay sex while opposing gay marriage.
Tammy Faye Bakker
 wears so much eye make-up that raccoons are jealous.
Hugo Chavez
, then uses church to market his diet drink.
Jimmy Swaggart:  Whore-monger.
Oral Roberts:    Blackmails his audience by saying he will die if they don't pony up the big bucks (I was expecting another scandal, based on his name...).
Peter Popoff:    Caught planting shills in audience for faith healing sessions.
Robert Tilton:   Promises to pray for people who send him money, then tosses prayer requests in the trash.
Benny Hinn:      Another faith healing scandal.
Jim Whittington: Money laundering, mail fraud, conspiracy, and interstate transportation of stolen property.
Paul Crouch:     Hush money for gay sex.
Cool-Aid
, anyone ?

StuRat 07:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that we have you around Stu to monitor the morals of others. I'm sure you could create quite a long list if you scouted around. You could create similar lists for politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen, Wikipedia contributors, child-abusing priests ... etc. These still don't represent anything like the majority of the populations of these groups of people. It's fun to deride such people, and I've done it myself, but the exceptions don't prove the rule. JackofOz 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that the majority of televangelists are evil hypocrites, only that a far larger percentage of them are than the general population. Apparently, the lure of big money, tax free, with no actual work, attracts that sort of person. StuRat 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. You didn't make it clear, till now, that that was what you were getting at. Thanks. JackofOz 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will ortega taking his nations presidency greatly hurt us nicarauga relations? Is ortega likley to side with hugo chavez and fidel Castro against the US?

If I understand you correctly I would say the answer is yes, on both counts. Clio the Muse 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just asking you might read the Daniel Ortega article and reach your own conclusions. Flamarande 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC) PLEASE SIGN YOUR QUESTIONS WITH 4 "~"[reply]

At least during his campaign, Ortega claimed to have reformed from his hard-core communist days. Whether that was just a lie to get elected, we will have to wait to see. StuRat 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US have already declared his election would hurt the relationships (so it's the US against Nicaragua, not the other way around). But that may have been just to scare off voters (which may have had the opposite effect), so if the US is going to live up to its threat is yet to be seen. DirkvdM 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...to side with Hugo Chavez ... against the US. This is so typical US thinking today. Chavez lives fine with the US buying his oil and gas, and he's a true pragmatist that cares for his people, not like the Saudis that openly side with the West, and in hidden, finance all the radical Muslim schools teaching Wahabism. But for many US people, even the existence of a socialist-like state is a danger in itself. Sheesh. -- 85.179.23.122 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez says some radical things, and cozies up to some rather unsavory types, like Castro (think back to the mass executions after he gained power) and Iran (financier of terrorism against Israel). These relationships, along with him formerly leading a failed military coup in his own country, make him look like a militaristic, anti-democratic leader. Still, I'd say the US should wait until he invades one of his neighbors, before taking any action. Even then, the US should only help if asked and needed. StuRat 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Damn, I promised Jack to be nice to everyone today. This is going to be a tough one. Assuming my promise doen't apply to Bush (ah, common) - that unsavoury character not only says nasty things, but does them too. Like invading other countries. What on Earth makes you tink Chavez is going to invade another country? You sound like a Dutch minister who made a totally unprovoked remark about the risk of Venezuela invading the Netherlands Antilles. Which would make some sense considering that Curaçao leases its oil refinery to the Venezuelan state oil company, were it not that there were no indications for an invasion at all. Nationalisation and invasion are rather different things. Bloody scaremongers. (Oops, sorry Jack) DirkvdM 08:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He might very well invade them, "to liberate the islands from their imperialistic overlords". If not, then there's no problem, is there ? StuRat 08:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my point (I think). So why bring up the option of an invasion when there is no reason to assume it might happen? DirkvdM 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To counter those, like Chavez, who keep saying an invasion is imminent. StuRat 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what the US does to American countries and oil producing countries and the fact that Venezuela is both, that isn't too far fetched. DirkvdM 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez is clearly trying to provoke a response from Bush so he will seem important. So far, except for Pat Robertson, we've ignored the fool completely. He may, therefore, feel he needs to invade somewhere (Curaçao might be convenient) to get the attention he craves. StuRat 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, Dirk. I'm sure you're doing the very best a Dutch person can do to be nice. You should be held up as an example to your people.  :) JackofOz 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez's world approval rating (and probably Ortega's soon) is higher than Bush's. Heck, it probably is in my portion of the greatest country on Earth, even after that "devil" speech. -Abeg92 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About what percentage of current new york city police officers have a bachelors degree or higher?

It depends on the background of the officer. Ex-military may apply to become an officer without college education. Of course, if they were an officer in the military, they had at least a 4-year college degree. If the applicant is not ex-military, 60 hours of college education with at least a 2.0 gpa (C average or above) is required. That is the equivalent of a 2-year degree or half of a 4-year degree. Then, there are education requirements for promotion. So, all in all, it is difficult to not get at least 4 years of college and remain in the NYPD for a long time. --

(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]