Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 23

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.

September 23

Corporate tax rate and hiring costs

I've run across a couple blog posts ([1] and [2]) which confirm the recently empirically validated idea that decreasing the effective corporate tax rate tends to suppress hiring because it puts the return from paying taxes on profits above the expected return from hiring and further production using pre-tax revenue (which also involves a feedback threshold effect in the macroeconomic situation when many businesses are facing the same changes in the effective tax rate -- if they all aren't hiring, the risk of investing in further production increases because consumer spending is suppressed.) As we've seen, this is accompanied by a spike in profits and bank deposits. I've come across some very oblique references to this effect in old theory papers, and in one recent labor economics sourcebook, but I'm looking for more mainstream sources on it. Does anyone have any suggestions for where this particular situation might have been studied in peer reviewed papers? —Cupco 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will find much mainstream support for those ideas. On the other hand, hopefully the additional taxes collected aren't just used to line politician's pockets. If those tax dollars are used to fund education, infrastructure, etc., this can create a more attractive place to open or expand a business, if they have an educated workforce, good roads, ports, airports, etc. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, I'm reasonably certain you didn't understand the question — it doesn't claim that there are "additional taxes collected" at all, it is about decreasing the tax rate — and using it as an opportunity to stand on a generic soap box about taxation is very poor form indeed. (It looks like you are trying to start a debate on an entirely different question.) If you don't know the answer — it would take some familiarity with economics to give a good answer — why not do the world a favor and keep it to yourself? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Those blogs argue that decreasing the corporate tax rate suppresses hiring. Therefore, we are comparing a lower corporate tax rate with a higher one, to try to determine which will create more jobs. In that context, we should consider both sides of the equation, how the increased (or decreased) taxation affects hiring, and also how the increased (or decreased) spending affects job growth. It's illogical to consider the impact of taxation without also looking at the impact of the corresponding spending. Indeed, the ideal tax rate for job creation is entirely dependent upon how the government spends those taxes. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Except of course you need to first establish a decreased corporate tax rate leads to a low level of government tax/revenue collection (and therefore less money available for government spending) which wasn't at issue until you started to bring up off topic issues in to the discussion but could easily be disputed since as per the original discussion, the effect of changing the tax rate is complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been argued that, in the long run, cutting taxes can increase revenue, but not in the short run. (If you cut taxes by 10%, that's not going to increase the size of the economy by 10% the first year.) And, of course, there's a limit to the benefits of always cutting taxes, as obviously a 0% tax rate won't increase tax revenue, no matter what the economy does. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't that Mr 98's point? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It was also partially my point, but StuRat is mistaken anyway. It's not simply a matter of growth which may take some time, but changes to behaviour which can happen very fast, e.g. if a company starts bringing more money in to the US which they used to hide in other places. While it's not usually claimed it will balance out straight away except in extreme cases, it is ultimately incredibly complicated and not something even economists agree on so not something to be just dismissed as unimportant. In any case, most of the spending StuRat described like education etc will take a long time to have an effect. In other words, if you want to consider this, you have do actually consider it properly and not just throw in random extra information. Either that or we can just stick with the original question and assume the OP is aware it's incredibly complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

While the benefits will last for decades, an immediate benefit in improved employment due to hiring more teachers, construction workers, road crews, etc., will also be felt. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hence the key word 'most'.... Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to ask about scholarly studies of the cost of paying tax on profits compared to the expected returns of hiring with pre-tax revenue in the macroeconomic context of a uniformly decreasing effective business tax rate. I was not trying to ask about the relationship between the tax rate and economic growth, which has been studied and written about extensively, almost entirely without the benefit of information pertaining to the former. I do not think this is very complicated, it's just a matter of finding the right keywords and source citations. —Cupco 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe the arguments in those blogs to be a fringe theory, unlikely to be supported in scholarly research. StuRat (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

On what basis? They are simple math anyone can verify with a calculator and a copy of the Internal Revenue Code. —Cupco 13:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the faulty underlying assumption: "Businesses want to make X dollars, so if we tax them more, they will do more so they can still earn X". The more reasonable assumption is "Businesses want to make as much money as possible". In this case, they hire as many people as needed to maximize profits, regardless of the tax rate. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the situation. If the effective tax rate is 30% and the return on investment from hiring and production is 5%, then hiring makes sense because it can be done with pre-tax revenue. If the effective tax tate is 10% and the expected return from hiring and production is -10% because of decreased consumer demand (because businesses aren't hiring...) then it makes more sense (in terms of the "make as much money as possible" goal) to pay the tax and bank the after-tax profits. Even if the expected return from hiring and production is thought to be -10% nominally, if the effective tax rate is 30% then it still makes more since to hire instead of bank, and if all businesses are facing that same decision, then aggregate demand will increase because of the additional consumer spending. —Cupco 22:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Evangelicalism in the US

I've wondered why do evangelicals seem to have so much power in the United States. It seems that public influence can be swayed by evangelicals, and politicians often campaign to get their votes. There's even a fast-food restaurant that closes on Sundays, which is quite unusual in current society. Evangelicals also seem to be much more common (or at least more visible or influential) in the United States than in any other country. Why is this the case? Does it have to do with the fact that, in the early days of the United States, people emigrated there to practice their religion and escape persecution? Or maybe this is just an illusion, since I've watched too much Simpsons? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Numbers. Evangelical Christians are a large enough proportion of the population in some parts of the U.S. to be able to be a sizable voting block. In the Southeastern U.S., your question would be like asking "Why do Muslims have so much power in Egypt?" Of course, in many parts of the U.S. (Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, etc.), there are not many Evangelical Christians, and so there aren't as many Evangelical politicians. --Jayron32 02:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"...(Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, etc.), there are not many Evangelical Christians"? That's just not true. California, for example, has more Evangelical Christians than any other state. However, they are proportionally fewer in the West and Northeast (I wouldn't include the Midwest) and so not as important as a voting block.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

California has more of everything than any other state. It's 1/6th of the country by population. Evangelicals in California don't make as significant of a voting block as they do in, say, Alabama, because they are not as significant a portion of the Californian population. If I crammed together a bunch of southern states to equal the same population as California, there'd be more Evangelicals in that southern Mega-state. --Jayron32 04:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One thing that must be understood about US politics is that evangelicals have large negatives with a significant portion of US voters. You will note that the Republican Party is trying very hard to hide their evangelical block from the public, as they know this is a sure way to lose a national election. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources? I'd say it's far more reasonable to state that parties are trying to hide their more radical subgroups, but "evangelical" is not a one-to-one correspondence with "radical". — Lomn 13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

True. Just as there was no mention of the "Tea Party" at the Republican Convention, I wouldn't expect much mention of the "99 Percenters" at the Democratic Convention, either. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Additionally, I'd say that things like both parties including "Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel", or however it's phrased, in their national platforms is calculated to appeal to a large number of evangelical Christians -- even the radical ones -- as well as Jews) — Lomn 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That specific phrase is meant to reassure both Evangelicals and Jews while being relatively unimportant to less conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics, and most others - with the obvious exception of Muslims, who don't constitute a large enough voting bloc for the politicians to take into consideration. --NellieBly (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Democratic governments act in the interest of their citizens. Politicians in democracies are elected by their citizens. So if a certain district has a large number of Evangelicals, a politician is naturally going to try to recruit them, because he/she will have to represent them in the government. The same would go for a district with any religion, race, ethnicity, etc. Evangelicals are a large part of American society, and as such, have greater influence. That's how a democracy functions. The part about closing on Sunday isn't part of the government. That's a personal decision by the restaurant owner, and can happen in any country even among a minority (the issue of #s doesn't apply here). --Activism1234 03:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To put this quantitatively, 26% of Americans identify as evangelicals according to our article. Evangelicals also have disproportionate power because they put heavy emphasis on a president's piety. A president can hope to attract the votes of a vast majority of evangelicals by being more religious than the other guy, but can't hope to attract a similar percentage of votes from the non-religious (15% of the population) by being less religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if he espouses the issues of the evangelicals, like saying he wants to ban abortion and arrest all illegal immigrants and their children, that will lose him the national election. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, arresting all illegal immigrants and their children is neither covered in the Bible nor a position particularly attributed to Evangelicalism.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn abortion either and actually values prenatal life as less than postnatal life since I think there was a line there about someone being forced to pay a fine for forcing a woman to miscarry rather than being charged with murder. Also, Reagan and both Bushes supported repealing Roe v. Wade (which would have caused some U.S. states to ban abortion) and they won the U.S. Presidency, sometimes by huge electoral and popular vote margins. Futurist110 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but none of them campaigned on that issue: "A Bush Presidency will mean the end to abortion forever !". That would have made them lose. Keeping their evangelical leanings hidden is the way to go, which is what Romney is doing. Also, back in Reagan's time, the backlash against evangelicals hadn't fully developed yet. As for the views of evangelicals being at odds with the Bible, I couldn't agree more. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The concept of separation of church and state in America was a result of reflection on Puritan society. Consider Thomas Hooker, Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, etc, who rejected Puritan lifestyle and established new colonies that promoted religious tolerance. The Salem Witch Trials really did it too. --Activism1234 04:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Baptists (evangelical Christians) were a major force for seperation of Church and State in America, Thomas Jefferson corresponded with several Baptist congregations over the issue, with one such letter from Jefferson (Letter to Danbury Baptists )being the original source of the famous phrase "Wall of Separation". See Baptists in the history of separation of church and state. Evangelical christians thus have a long history of supporting seperation of Church and State. --Jayron32 05:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion. I was discussing Puritan society - not Baptists or Evangelicals. --Activism1234 06:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

By the 18th entury, the Puritan movement (originally ultra-Protestant Anglicans who disagreed with keeping Catholic traditions within the church) had formed Baptist and Quaker congregations. So by 1777, Puritans were Baptists. See our article Puritan. 82.153.115.236 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm having with this question is that the OP has confused "evangelical Christians" with "conservative Christians". It's not an accurate assumption - many, *many* conservative Christians are Catholic (and Orthodox), while many, *many* evangelical Christians are not politically conservative. --NellieBly (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Who made this curse? (shown on PBS about 10-15 years ago)

A man was being pressed to death and at one point his tongue stuck out. Someone took his cane and pushed it back in. Then he put curse on the estate until every stone he scartered over the land is returned. Maybe he said how many. And apparently stuff after that (like the Hpe diamond) that the modern owners keep the one(s) that've been found. And there's lake or pond on the property and they believe that they might never (all) be found. 96.246.70.87 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That'd be Giles Corey. --Jayron32 03:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I could've sworn that (maybe distinctive looking) stones were the curse. 96.246.70.87 (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The part about the curse is bullshit. The rest of the stort, regarding being pressed to death and the cane being used to put the tongue back in his mouth, is history. Lots of the stuff related to the Salem Witch Trials has been embelished over the years, sometimes with some really fantastical stuff. The actual historical figure cast no curses. The only words he spoke during the ordeal were "more weight". --Jayron32 17:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. That's carrying "freedom of the press" a little too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Names with ordinal numbers

There is an apparently purely American (other than for royalty and pontiffs) habit of using ordinal numbers with names (e.g. Davis Love III, George Hamilton IV). My central question is "What's up with that?", but it might be useful to break it down into How did it arise? Is it practised anywhere else? and Is it considered a bit pompous even there? I'm genuinely interested, so no Yank-bashing please. Henry^Flower 05:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It denotes the third bearer of that name in that family (in the case of Davis Love) or the 4th in the case of George Hamilton. European monarchs and popes follow the convention. There is, however, an interesting exception: the House of Reuss, whose males are all called Henry and numbered sequentially until you get to 100, when the sequence starts again. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it means, and I already mentioned that monarchs and popes follow it. That doesn't answer my questions. Henry^Flower 09:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a term for this practice? The closest I can find to relevant articles are Name at birth and wiktionary:name after. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to "Davis Love 3" or "Davis Love the Third"? This is certainly something that has evolved. Shakespeare originally called the monarch in the play we call Henry VIII (play) by the term "Henry the eight." Not "eighth" and not "VIII". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Googling this subject suggests that it's adopted from the tradition of using Roman Numerals with royal lineage. Also, consider this: The typical name consists of strictly letters, not numbers (with the exception of Tom Lehrer's friend Hen3ry). Roman numberals are letters too. So it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(or Jennifer 8. Lee 69.228.171.70 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

OK, so what does the "8." stand for? Although my guess is that it stands for the same thing as the "S." in "Harry S. Truman", or the "H." in "Jesus H..." - well, you get the idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No--the format of the ordinal is not what interests me; its use is (serves me right for trying to be concise). This manner of naming would never* be used in the UK, because a) children seem less often to be named after their parents, and b) if they are, they would be referred to by some sort of nickname rather than the full name. What interests me is the sociology of the American practice.

To complicate things further, is the practice ever followed with women? (Now that married names are going out of fashion).

• With the exception of a family of eccentric publishers mentioned here a few years ago. Henry^Flower 15:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The practice doesn't exist in the UK because we have our own naming conventions. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It does occasionally occur in Norway. The grandfather would be Sr. (senior), his son would be Jr. (junior), and the grandson when reaching adulthood and some notability, might add a 'III' to his name to avoid confusion. I've seen this in a family where there are three doctors, grandfather, son and grandson all having the same given name and surname. I checked the grandson in pubmed. In early publications, the grandson is listed with a '3rd' behind his last initial. In later publications, he has dropped the '3rd'. His father is still 'Jr.' in pubmed, at a time when 'Sr.' surely must have passed away. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I may be misremembering, but the only Australian case I'm aware of is William Wentworth (Australian politician) (1907-2003), who was generally known as Bill or Billy or plain William, but in historical contexts it was sometimes "William Wentworth IV", to distinguish him from his great-grandfather the explorer William Wentworth (1790-1872). He had a son of the same name (II), and from a different son he had a grandson of the same name (III), neither of whom was notable. William III was the father of William IV. Their middle names couldn't be used to tell them apart because all 4 of them had Charles. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article onomastics (meaning the study of proper names, anthroponomastics being the study of humans' names) mentions an American Name Society, who publish a journal on onomastics. That might be a good place to look, or you could try contacting the society. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as the pompousness of it... For the average Joe, it would be pretty pompous to go around insisting that you be referred to by the ordinal. It's generally just used in things that are legal or if fathers and sons are in the same business. I've known a few "thirds" and I've never heard them introduced to anyone with the "third" spoken. If it comes up in conversation, it comes up. But it's rarely pointed out during day to day use. Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions in America have varied over the centuries. In early America, if three unrelated men named "John Smith" lived in a small town, they were called "John Smith Sr.," "John Smith Jr.," and "John Smith III" in order of their ages. When "John Smith Sr." died, the "Jr." moved up to "Sr." etc. I don't know when the custom referred to by the OP came into vogue, but I've always assumed it came from Britain. How sure are we that it was never the custom in the UK to name men in a lineage "John Smith Sr.," "John Smith Jr" .(likely nicknamed 'Johnny,'). "John Smith, III" (likely Trey for short) etc? Maybe the Brits did it in the 1600's but do not now because it seems too pretentious. It would be surprising if people in the US started doing it a couple of hundred years ago with no prior history of such a naming custom. Edison (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In Britain there are peers, who use titles rather than their given/surnames, and most titles come with numbers. The 19th Viscount Gibbetworthy is quickly differentiated from any of his predecessors. Same for ruling monarchs. But people of the lower orders would have been seen to be somewhat pretentious, and getting a bit beyond their station, if they adopted such a practice. In the US, where there is officially no institutionalised class system, I suspect it's only those who've become public figures, or leaders in a certain field, or have inherited wealth and fame and are expected to continue the dynasty, or see themselves as apart from the common herd, who would do this. Would Thurston Howell, III have had the ordinal if he were a nondescript nonentity such as a file clerk on average wages? Hardly. (No offence to nondescript nonentities, or file clerks on average wages.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If the Howells were a poor farming family who named, say, the oldest son after the father in each generation, then Thurston Howell III might be a man of no property or influence, and would not be a subject of ridicule in the US. I have seen such things many times in genealogy research. It is a custom brought from England, like "Herbert Pelham III," born 1600 in England, who came to America 1639. Such naming of offspring seems to imitate what was convention in the old country, where it may have diminished. Edison (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I had wondered if it might be a relic from ye olde Britain. I've never come across it in historic British contexts, but perhaps I need to read more old genealogies. Henry^Flower 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The linked source seems to have been written in the US in 1950. The same chap, Herbet Pelham, is described in the 1904 Lincolnshire Pedigrees as "Herbert Pelham of Swinehead". No mention of any Roman numerals for his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography either. The only Google results for "Herbert Pelham III" are in American (and one Norwegian!) publications. Alansplodge (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Alansplodge (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But in Britain, any given title refers to only one living peer. It's only when there's a need for disambiguation from dead peers that enumeration comes into play. Among the living, those in line for a peerage title take subordinate courtesy titles to distinguish themselves from their father and grandfather. So the eldest son of the Duke of Wellington would be known as the Marquess Douro during his father's lifetime; his son would be the Earl of Mornington, and his son Viscount Wellesley. In American families who repeatedly use the same name and wind up with I, II, III, etc., it may be worth mentioning that III might well be known as "Tripp" at the country club. - Nunh-huh 10:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See also Alexander Monro (secundus) and Alexander Monro (tertius).

Quintus, Sextus, Septimus, Octavius and Decimus are also recorded as given names, but they are either an indicator of birth order within the same set of siblings, or maybe the holder was named after an earlier famous Quintus, Septimus etc. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: your question about whether this enumeration is done elsewhere, it is the practice in traditional theater of Japan for a master performer when retiring to hand down their name to an apprentice or son, none the worse for wear, only with a higher numeral. A brief google search gave me this Kabuki related page [3] where there is mention of 'the first name changing of the 21st century' and some minor scandal about it. The father, Bandō Mitsugoro IX handed the name over to the son, making him Bando Mitsugoro X. Clicking on the link for this name in the article gives a CV that reads almost like a thoroughbred breeding history: [4].

Also, staying in Japan, similarly to what Jack mentioned above, traditionally siblings would be given numbered names, with the names Taro, Jiro, Saburo, Shiro, Goro roughly corresponding to first son, second son and so on to fifth son. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Capital punishment

Can someone tell me the moral justification for a state killing someone for killing someone? It seems duplicitous to me. What am I missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Permanent removal. Also allegedly a deterrent, but the jury's still out on that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to a deterrent and preventing future crimes, there's also the element of retribution: an eye for an eye. A sense of justice. If you think capital punishment is equivalent to murder, then imposing a fine is equivalent to theft, and arresting someone is equivalent to kidnapping. - Lindert (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, for once an interesting analogy I haven't heard before! μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 100%. Great analogy! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Punishments generally have up to four purposes: retribution, deterrent, prevention and rehabilitation. Obviously, capital punishment doesn't do the last one (a lot of punishments only to two or three of them) but the arguments for the other three are basically the same as for any other punishment. The counter-arguments are also pretty much the same as for other punishments. You can argue that it doesn't actually achieve the desired result (the evidence for capital punishment being an effective deterrent is pretty weak, for example) and you can argue that the punishment is disproportionate (ie. you can argue that the immorality of executing someone outweighs the benefits - some people put infinite weight to that immorality, so would never accept capital punishment regardless of the benefits). You can also argue that the punishment does more harm than good (eg. putting people in prison exposes them to other criminals and get them involved in more serious crimes once they are released), although I'm not sure you could construct an argument against capital punishment along those lines (except in the case of martyrs). --Tango (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they just greatly restrict inmates' fraternization? Sure there's no space, but so many of them are there just for being drug addicts anyway, release them to rehab and you might get it back. And why do guards still work in a place where they can get shanked and prisoners who are utterly self-serving on the outside keep living there (Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison) when to enter solitary/protective custody all they have to do is ask. Never made sense to me why they give them sharpenable things and put so many of them together at once to fight and trade crime tips when the crazy are put in a rubber room. 96.246.70.87 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'd certainly isolate them completely from other criminals. Just as "associating with known criminals" is bad for rehabilitation after release, it's also bad while still in custody. There was one prison that would put people in isolation with nothing but a Bible, but that seemed to drive some insane. I'd also give them educational materials, sessions with counselors (perhaps by CCTV or over the Internet), videos on anger management, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lack of human contact can have serious psychological effects, even with things to keep you occupied. You also risk them losing what social skills they have, which won't serve them well on the outside. --Tango (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The interaction with counselors should handle this (I don't think the human interaction necessarily needs to be face-to-face). StuRat (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

. I don't think you know anything about what you're talking about, here. If you're interested in getting informed, this article is a pretty nice way to start. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And you apparently lack basic reading comprehension skills. As I've said twice now, they would have interactions with counselors. Being isolated from other prisoners is not the same as total isolation, which is what your link talks about. They would also have things to do, windows, etc. And, while babies need actual physical contact, adults can interact with each other remotely, like we are doing now. The goal is not to eliminate all human contact, only negative human contact. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Per usual you are making things up, wholesale, as you go along. It is obvious you know not a thing about what you're talking about. You are worse than the participants on Yahoo! Answers, because at least they have the good grace to mix in enough misspellings that no random person on the Internet would ever confuse them for a reliable source. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you both adults?Ptg93 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid giving them sharpenable things - toothbrushes are commonly sharpened and they can't do without them. I suppose you could make them hand in their toothbrush every time they use it, but it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare. It's also bad for morale to treat prisoners like that. --Tango (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A recent protest at an Australian prison was over the issuing of toothbrushes with rubbery handles. They were stiff enough for brushing one's teeth, but useless for sharpening into a weapon. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely you know we have an article capital punishment with a lot of material related to your question, including a lot of pro and anti external links. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question... Any moral justification for capital punishment has to justify the fact that it's impossible to compensate the subject if they are wrongly convicted. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that's any different from anything else done (rightly or wrongly) in the name of the public interest, that could result in someone getting killed accidentally. A bad legislative decision about, say, health policy or starting a war, will probably cause a lot more unjustified deaths than all the incorrect capital punishment verdicts in a comparable time period put together. Overall though I think this question is in WP:NOTFORUM territory and the OP is better off checking the existing sources. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Capital punishment is not an accidental death. And anyway, I was more making the comparison with fines and imprisonment based on incorrect conviction. A fine can be simply repaid to the innocent person. Financial compensation and state apologies are typical for wrongful imprisonment. But there's no easy way to compensate a dead person for their death. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cole is by no means a newbie, so I wonder why he brought this up. Maybe he could tell us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The question arose during a conversation over dinner. We looked at the Capital punishment in the United States article and didn't see the answer there. I was hoping someone might be able to point me to a version of how a state reconciles a prohibition against killing with the act of retributive killing, they seem incompatible. This is a topic I know nothing about and thought if there was a well-known, boilerplate-type standard justification that states typically wheel out, someone might point me to it. Please don't go to any trouble if you don't know the answer; I just raised it in case somebody here knew where to look for the answer. I'll check out Capital punishment later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that for many American conservatives the justification is in Leviticus 24:17 - "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And maybe more importantly, because it is outside the context of the Mosaic law, and thus not limited to Israel, Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.".

I don't see how they make the logical jump from "We are made in God's image" to "therefore, murderers must be executed". Death penalty opponents would argue that this leads to exactly the opposite conclusion. StuRat (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ehm, have you read the first part of the sentence? It's not conservatives that reach that conclusion, it's the author of Genesis (or rather, God Himself quoted by the author of Genesis). - Lindert (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by "they", I mean "the authors of the Bible". It seems an illogical conclusion, even if you accept the premise. StuRat (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The arguments I hear are not really about "moral" justification, but rather "social" justification - namely, that society has the right to permanently protect itself from a murderer, and the only certain way to do that is by exterminating him in a method prescribed by law. Keep in mind that the Ten Commandments proscription is against murder, which is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Critique of Jared Diamond

There is a discussion going on on the Science desk at the moment (that I think should probably be here, which is why I'm asking my question here) about the theories of Jared Diamond and how a lot of people disagree with them. I have read Guns, Germs, and Steel and found it a very interesting and plausible theory. Can anyone recommend a good, detailed critique of it, ideally also written for the layman? --Tango (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Googling "Jared Diamond Critique" gave me a couple right off the bat here and here. These are opinion pieces, and I have no idea how reliable these folks are, but they are what you ask for, I think. Mingmingla (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure "posting the first blog posts that came up while Googling" is what Tango meant by "recommend[ing] a good, detailed critique of it." --Mr.98 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I can find critiques myself easily enough, but I know refdeskers tend to have quite good judgement about how good references are, so I'm hoping to make use of that to find something actually worth reading. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you check Guns, Germs, and Steel#Criticism? 69.228.171.70 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a rather important review article in the AHR: Gale Stokes "The Fates of Human Societies: A Review of Recent Macrohistories" The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 508-525: "one might ask if it is even possible to write scholarly work on a macrohistorical scale?" I'd suggest that this review dismissed Diamond by ignoring him; Diamond is used in the review as a controversialist with a narrow causative vision (geographical determinism) and a decent enough question poorly answered. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Laudabiliter

Just a few questions:

1. Were the Popes elected after Adrian IV always in favour of the Laudabiliter?
2. Was the purpose of the Laudabiliter to allow the English to conquer Ireland and convert the "heretics" (as someone had told me), or was it just an excuse and instead used to impose territorial gains over the island?
3. If the latter is true, were the States of the Church and the subsequent Popes aware of this "scandal"?
4. Could it have been possible to denounce the Laudabiliter, even in the 1460s? How would the procedure be accomplished?

Thanks. 50.101.203.150 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As you are likely aware, the situation is complex. Firstly, I'm not sure that we can know the position of every Pope on the matter, at some point in history the matter became moot because of other historical developments. For example, I don't imagine John Paul II gave the matter much thought at all, though he was certainly keenly aware of contemporary Irish-English relationships; I don't know that he thought on the matter in terms of an 850-year old bull. Secondly, the actual authenticity of the bull has been questioned repeatedly throughout history, according to our article, almost as soon as it was issued. Many popes after Adrian IV, however, continued to refer to it and cite it as though they treated it as legitimate. Thirdly, the Pope was a secular ruler as much as a leader of the Catholic Church, especially so in the middle ages, and he was not immune to political intrigue and manouvering. The fact that Adrian IV was English is not insiginficant in the history of the Bull, and like all politics, the status of the bull is subject to realpolitik, as was the rest of Papal actions throughout history. For example, our article cites a bull by Paul IV confirming Henry VIII's daughter Mary as legitimate Queen of Ireland (and not Henry VIII) under the terms of the original Bull, over Henry's excommunication and apostasy. --Jayron32 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

could i pay for internet tv like satellite tv

i have a fast broadband connection (30 megabit or so) and a big lcd monitor and high-quality soundcard. i'm living in a different country, but i know some people pay for international satellite tv to use on their tv. i don't have a tv proper, but can't I pay for 300 international channels all via internet or IP (irrespective of where I'm living)? If it's only available in certain geographic areas I could also pay for a vpn. I'm interested in channels from America. but I'm also curious now if I could do the same thing for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Thanks. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You would have to get that from your Internet Service Provider. Yours is Upc Magyarorszag Kft.. Their web page seems to show that they provide digital television, so you should contact them. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Something else you might want to consider is a tuner card and TV antenna. This allows you to watch broadcast TV, for free (after the initial purchase), on your computer. And, unlike Internet TV, it puts a minimal load on your computer, so you can have the TV going in one window and use the computer in another, without each slowing the other down. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note that a large amount of TV is available over the Internet for free (with ads). See Hulu.com, for example. Some programs have their own web sites, too, like SouthParkStudios.com. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot (as in a very large percentage) of this is US-only due to licensing and copyright issues. You can't even get Hulu in Canada, let alone in Hungary. --NellieBly (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that program makers still sell licences to show their content to broadcasters on a regional basis. So the rights to show say Formula 1 are owned by different broadcasters in different countries. Recently those content contracts have often (but not at all always) been extended to allow the same broadcasters to show the content on their internet channels - but the geographic restriction remains the same, so those broadcasters are contractually mandated to limit visitors to IPs that geolocate within their territory. The two things StuRat cites as examples both do this: neither is available in the UK (the latter has a similar but different service that covers the UK). So Hulu isn't available outside the US, the BBC's iplayer (at least its TV content) isn't available outside the UK, and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation's internet feed isn't available outside Norway. Some broadcasters (particularly those like the BBC and NRK) which also create lots of their own content may chose to allow that to be viewed everywhere (NRK's is here), but you tend to get the kind of stuff that foreigners wouldn't buy anyway (brilliant though Supernytt is). So, as you say, you can use a VPN to make yourself appear in a location, which allows a provider to feel they can send you the content. Probably the broadcasters should be blocking VPNs, and I expect if their use increases the content providers will force them to. Apparently Americans were using VPNs to subvert NBC's restrictive, time-delayed coverage and watch BBC live instead [5] - this apparently didn't hurt NBCs ratings, but if it did they'd surely be shrieking at the BBC, IOC, and VPN companies, so as to protect that content they paid billions for. This problem already exists for satellite - for example, coverage of English football is sold to different European broadcasters who transmit it to their own countries on satellites - but the satellites cover much of western Europe, so those companies have to protect the content with encryption and only sell the decryption cards within their jurisdiction. This was the substance of a recent legal dispute in the UK (story) where a pub bought decoding equipment (and a subscription) in Greece (where the content was cheaper than in the UK) and then showed it in her UK premises. It's possible that the fallout of that case may mean the entire EU becomes a single licensing area (because, if that case is upheld generally) it could be illegal to prevent someone in one EU country viewing the country-limited content intended for another EU member state. In the meantime, content is still licensed nationally, so I think you're stuck with using VPNs to subvert that. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Newfoundland Act 1949

Why doesn't the Newfoundland Act have a year in its name? Did Parliament forget to append a year to the name when they changed it in 1982? Newfoundland Act 1949 and Newfoundland Act, 1949 are both redlinks, and I hesitate to create them if there be a good reason for the lack of a year. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Acts usually have a year in their legal name to differentiate them from earlier acts of the same name. If the Newfoundland Act of 1949 is the first act of that name introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it would not contain a year in its title. Note that some acts have years in their common name that don't exist in their legal name - the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 is legally the "Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Issue of her Body". Edited to add: if people are (mistakenly) calling the "Newfoundland Act" the "Newfoundland Act 1949", that's a good reason to have a redirect even if the usage is wrong; redirects don't exist to justify incorrect usage but to allow readers to find articles. We have (or at least should have) a redirect to American Broadcasting Company at American Broadcasting Corporation specifically because people make that mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Short title doesn't say anything about the year being included only if previous acts had the same title; the only thing that it says about the omission of a year is in Canadian federal legislation. It also refers to the "Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act (1879) Amendment Act 1880", and if a year were omitted in the title of the first act by a certain name, this would surely be it; I can't imagine that there were multiple candidates for the title "Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act (1879) Amendment Act". Meanwhile, on your Sophia Naturalization Act, this is likely the only act with this title, and anyway that title was presumably conferred by one of the Short Titles Acts, as short titles apparently weren't used in 1705. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It was originally titled the British North America Act 1949, but was renamed in Canada on the patriation of the Canadian Constitution from the United Kingdom in 1982. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I previously missed the "in Canada" from the passage that you quote. So is it officially the "British North America Act 1949" in the UK to the present day? I don't know how to search for British laws. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1949/22 Gabbe (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Politicians With Notability in Other Fields

Which U.S. politicians were notable for something else (besides being military men/women) before getting into politics, besides Al Franken, Jon Runyan, and J. C. Watts? I would prefer that modern U.S. politicians be given in the answers, but you can also talk about historical U.S. politicians (besides those who were famous as military men). Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger. --Daniel 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

John Glenn, Ronald Reagan. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Detroit mayor Dave Bing. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole category at Category:American athlete–politicians. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And Category:American actor–politicians. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And Category:American astronaut–politicians. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, a lot of actors come to mind, maybe as many as military. Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, etc. Maybe so many to exclude them like military. John Glenn and Harrison Schmitt were both astronauts (Glenn a Navy pilot, Schmitt a geologist). Mitt Romney ran an investment firm and is a clergyman. Bill Bradley was a pro basketball player. Michael Bloomberg was/is a media mogul. There's lots more and might be a good "list" article. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney was not a notable clergyman, as far as I know. Ptg93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney's role as a Mormon cleric has gotten quite a bit of media attention recently[6] but ok, it might not have been notable if he hadn't become famous for other reasons. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower? (oops, I see you said apart from the military) Benjamin Franklin? Steven Chu? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

He said it twice. Maybe you should be using double strike.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack Kemp was a starting QB for the Buffalo Bills back in the old AFL before a lengthy political career. Heath Schuler is a more recent football transplant to politics. Ben L. Jones played Cooter on the Dukes of Hazzard before being elected to the House of Representatives. Fred Thompson is yet another notable actor who became a politician. --Jayron32 00:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson was a professor of jurisprudence, writer and educator, rising to become President of Princeton University. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sen. Jim Bunning (R–Kentucky) pitched a no-hitter for the Phillies in 1964. (Also, Ben Franklin was not really a politician, as he never held any elected office.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to have to be elected to be considered a politician. His work in France was politicking of the highest order. Besides, he was elected President of Pennsylvania. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And Franklin held elected offices besides that one. He was elected to and served in the Second Continental Congress. --Jayron32 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A large number of people who rose to prominence after the Civil War were probably notable by their military service, as they would have been bound to be written up in the papers. I was thinking though of James A. Garfield's mathematical exploits ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your answers. I wonder if there was ever a prominent notable woman who then entered politics (whose notability was not associated with being family to a politician or with the military). Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Madeleine Albright fits your criteria? She's certainly had a very interesting life. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not US but Angela Merkel has published several papers due to her career in chemistry before politics. Dismas|^(talk) 09:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Margaret Thatcher also a working research chemist before entering political life? --Jayron32 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Those ladies were never notable in their pre-politics life, and it's unknowable whether they would ever have become notable had they remained in chemistry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And again in the UK, Glenda Jackson was an actress before she entered Parliament. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren was a law professor, then ran a government consumer agency, and is now a US Senate candidate. Hillary Clinton was First Lady before entering politics on her own, served as a Senator and is now Secretary of State. Actress Roseanne Barr is currently a third-party candidate for US President. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman were both business executives before running for office (unsuccessfully, but they were serious candidates). In Sweden, Anna Troberg is a novelist who ran a publishing company, then got into a debate about copyright policy with members of the Swedish Pirate Party, that led to her joining the party and eventually becoming its leader. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mary Bono was semi-notable as the third wife of the more notable Sonny, before entering politics. --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Among the males, I'd consider Teddy Roosevelt- (notable as historian, military "adventurist" (though never enlisted)) but he was active in politics from the very beginning. He was more broadly NOTABLE for non-political stuff, before 1900.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Full metal jacket, the film, and real training

How realistic is the training in the film Full metal jacket? Ptg93 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this myself. I do recall people on internet forums who served in Vietnam saying that Stanley Kubrick got the boot camp scenes mostly right, as per their own experiences... though in real life, wouldn't Pvt. Pyle have been let go after a couple of weeks or so when it became clear that he wasn't hacking it - long before he was driven to blowing his stack? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing I do recall being mentioned was that sometimes in the movie, the Privates would sometimes refer to themselves in the first person in front of the Drill Instructor ('I don't know...' instead of 'The Private does not know...' etc.) without him going crazy on them, as would have happened in real life back then (or maybe still does?). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that if you are not physically fit enough, you won't go into basic military training with weapons and stuff. You'll go through the route of United_States_Army_Basic_Training#Reception_Battalion.~Maybe it was different at the time. That's another issue, maybe the film is realistic, but the army has changed, making it anachronistic. Ptg93 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind this was the Marines, not the Army, and regimentation may have been a tad more severe. I also think it unlikely that guys in basic training in any branch would be allowed free access to rifles and ammunition. But it does make for a dramatic story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, regardless of how accurate it was on depicting the Marines, the film may have accurately portrayed what it was probably like on a Kubrick film set, as he was notorious for pyschologically and physically abusing his actors, often to the point of genuine injury or mental anguish. In A Clockwork Orange, Malcolm McDowell suffered eye damage and broken ribs because Kubrick wanted the scenes where they were suffered to be as realistic as possible, so McDowell was genuinely beaten and tortured. Almost every one of his films featured major actors breaking down after having to shoot the same scenes dozens upon dozens of times. He basically lied to George C. Scott on Dr. Strangelove so he could get a comic performance out of him, tricking him to think that his absurdist "warm up" scenes weren't being filmed. Shelly Duvall was physically ill from the stresses of working on The Shining, in many ways her panicked, hysterical performance wasn't as much acting as it was a natural result of having to work around Kubrick for extended periods of time. --Jayron32 03:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the above was wrong, because Kubrick could do no wrong. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw a quote somewhere from R. Lee Ermy, the ill-fated drill instructor, who was asked about Kubrick and he described him as "a prince among men". Of course, that might be because Kubrick basically told the former real-live D.I., "OK, we're rolling. Do your thing." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, some actors positively worshiped Kubrick. Jack Nicholson was among them. Of course, he's also batshit insane, so there is that. Ermy was, as you note, party to Kubrick's psychological abuse. Given that Kubrick's famously long filming schedule and penchant for wasting huge amounts of film on retake after retake, the actors in FMJ had to deal with literally weeks of unbroken ten-hour days of Ermy screaming in their faces. Plus there's the fact that he filmed much of the post-boot camp scenes on a highly-toxic hazardous waste site, several actors complained of ill-health for some time afterwards as a result of working long days in that environment. --Jayron32 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Slim Pickens supposedly refused to work with Kubrick again after "Dr. Strangelove" unless unless there would be a contractual clause limiting Kubrick to a maximum of 100 takes per scene... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible exaggerated story, though it does sound somewhat plausible in light of the other tales of Kubrick's love of retakes - the scene in A Clockwork Orange where the parole officer/social worker guy hocks a loogie right in McDowell's face from about 6 inches away was supposedly repeated 50+ times until Kubrick was perfectly happy that he'd got the arrangement of spit on his leading man's face just right in an aesthetic sense. Then he ordered a few more takes of it, just to be on the safe side. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I can supply that according to marines I know that were in the service around the time of Full Metal Jacket, R. Lee Ermy 100% captures the real drill instructor experience (which makes sense because I believe was a DI trainer). Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Next time you see one of them, maybe you could ask if the scene with "Gomer Pyle" wielding a fully-loaded rifle in the barracks is realistically possible. I could imagine the Marines might make their recruits sleep with their rifles and all that sort of stuff. But allowing them free access to ammunition would be just begging for trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I went through Army basic training just a couple years before the movie was filmed. My drill sergeants used some of the same profane phrases that showed up in the movie, so the lingo apparently travels between the services. I had a couple buddies in the Marines at the same time and they tell me that my experience was like summer camp compared to theirs. Once you've been through basic, the movie version doesn't seem too bad, just a bit exaggerated. Nowadays they're not supposed to hit or touch you, but I imagine that was different a generation ago. I did have a drill sergeant lean against me, pushing me over while I was doing pushups and while he was cussing a blue streak. But this was weeks into boot camp, and by that time those sort of things don't phase you at all. I thought he was a very nice man even at the time. We were both just doing our jobs. Access to live ammunition was strictly controlled. I've always assumed that in the movie, Private Pyle smuggled live rounds off the rifle range or something, which is possible if you're determined to break the rules. —Kevin Myers 00:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the stuff the DI was spouting in Full Metal Jacket was the exact same stuff said by the DI in An Officer and a Gentleman several years earlier, so there must be kind of a standard "catalog" of stuff the DI's all say. Some of it's so outrageous it might be hard to keep a straight face, but of course if you show that kind of reaction then you'll really be in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)