Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 8

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.

CODY MATHERSON ON FB -

Cody Matherson (born June 17, 1959[1])in Pflugerville, Texas is an American singer-songwriter and producer. He is best known for such recordings as "Can I Borrow a Feelin?, "Krystal Rae", "Love My Mullett" and of course his attempt to harness the power and fame of his 1st hit with his not so celebrated follow up hit "Can I still Borrow that Feelin?", Said by Rolling Stone to be a cross between Barry Manilow, Lynard Skinnard and Elvis. In 1978, five of his albums were on the best-selling charts simultaneously, a feat equalled only by Frank Sinatra, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen and Johnny Mathis. He has recorded a string of Billboard hit singles and multi-platinum albums that have resulted in his being named Radio & Records number one Adult Contemporary artist and winning three straight American Music Awards for Favorite Pop/Rock Male Artist. Between 1974 - 1979 Matherson had 7 number 1 singles, five of which were consecutive. Several well-known entertainers have praised Matherson, including Sinatra, who was quoted in the 1970s saying, "He's next." In 1988, Bob Dylan stopped Matherson at a party, hugged him and said, "Don't stop what you're doing, man. We're all inspired by you and your killer mustache."[2] As well as producing and arranging albums for other artists, including Ken Snyder Jr and Dan Grary (Gravy Dan), Matherson has written songs for musicals, films, and commercials. From February 2005 to December 30, 2009, he was the headliner at Pflugerville’s Graham Central Station, performing hundreds of shows before ending his relationship with the Gas-station/Night Club. From March 2010, he has headlined at The Blind Pig and the Chuggin Monkey in Austin’s famous down town East 6th street . He has sold more than 18 hundred records worldwide.[3] The more ardent of Matherson’s fans are referred to as "Matherson Maniacs".. He was said to have dated the likes of Katharine Hepburn, Sigourney Weaver, Ingrid Bergman and the girl that played Jo on “The Facts of Life”

, Awards 1977 Emmy for Outstanding Special – Comedy, Variety or Music – The Cody Matherson Special 1977 Special Tony Award – Cody on Broadway 1978 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist 1979 Grammy – Copacabana Best Pop Male Vocal Performance 1979 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist 1980 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist Guest appeared in several popular T.V shows such as: T.J Hooker, Hart2Hart, BJ Mckay & His Best Friend Bear and the Night Rider pilot episode

International Trade

I've had some problems lately on how trade is conducted internationally. What I don't understand is how countries are benefitting from trade. Isn't it the private companies that trade resources to either other companies or the people of another country? I understand that with the growth of companies, a country is going to prosper along with the market, but is that the only affect? Are imports and exports being bought by "nations" rather than "companies"? Any enlightenment will help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rentastrawberry (talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

See trade and international trade. If you are really interested, The Wealth of Nations makes good reading on this subject. Trade between nations that are to some degree capitalistic is indeed primarily between companies, but remember that companies are ultimately owned by individuals or groups of individuals. Every transaction of imported and exported goods and services adds up and is figured into the GDP which is a measure of all the goods and services that a country has gained. Like companies, countries are groups of people. You could also look at trade between U.S. states, between a U.S. state and another country, or between groups of countries, like the EU or Mercosur. It's basically looking at the same thing at different levels.

The basic idea of exchange is that both parties are better off in material goods or wealth than they would have been had the exchange not occurred. This is true at an individual, company, or national level.

The rise of multi-national corporations have blurred these lines somewhat and made it more difficult to assess the situation. In addition, not all trade is made by companies, as governments also purchase goods. -THB 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the most useful way to think of this is in terms of employment, income and balance of payments. International trade benefits 'countries' rather than 'companies' as increased demand for goods and services from abroad would mean more people at home are employed and/or are getting paid more. Alternatively, companies competing with cheap imports may lose out and have to sack workers or reduce their wages, meaning that there is less employment and income in the relevant sectors at home. Taking this approach solves the problem with multi-national corporation since trade within the multinationals (Apple buying parts for iPod from China and Thailand for assembly elsewhere, etc.) can also count as international trade and their effects on 'countries' evaluated. The balance of payments refers to the payments that flow in and out of countries and trade is part of this. The volume and speed that payments flow in and out of countries directly affect the exchange rate and, hence, affects stability and growth of the national economy in general. Lastly, don't forget that despite all the talk about globalization, the international trade system is still based on the states being the main negotiators. If American farmers can't export hormone-fed beef to Europe, they don't go to talk directly with European supermarkets but lobby the American government to bring the case against the EU to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. --Ithi s 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Song info

Does anyone recognize the song on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YrYvj3HZ1I&mode=related&search= (starts ca. 02:53 and goes further)? A bit hard to search by scattered words. Thanks. --Brand спойт 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any working sound on this computer. Could you give some recurring phrases and a small description, too? =S 惑乱 分からん 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a mix of punk rock and alternative featuring only female voice. The only words I've understood are "I" and "we" recurring in the chorus. --Brand спойт 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightwish - Sacrament of Wildness good voice, crap lyrics. Nightwish; probably would sound better if sung in finnish. meltBanana 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) BTW they sound nothing like -->>> Melt Banana so give them a listen. (or else) meltBanana 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I would like to know the names of some countries that the united states went to war with over natural resources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.181.30 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The United States, to my knowledge, has never claimed access to natural resources as a justification for wars it has entered. However, many have argued that both of the United States' wars with Iraq have involved securing access to oil in the Middle East. Marco polo 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the only reason Iraq became enough of a threat to justify war was because it had oil, but that doesn't mean the US is there to "steal it's oil". That would be quite impossible. It would take decades to extract all of Iraq's oil, even with all of the infrastructure working, and the value would never exceed the cost of the wars. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The US, British and multinational Oil Corporations did not pay for the wars in Iraq, but they certainly are profiting immensely from the oil extracted there. The US Government, and thus the US taxpayers are footing the bill for those wars. And even once the oil fields are back in the hands of local companies the oil will be available first to the foreign oil corporations who rarely allow the wealth produced from the oil to flow to the common people. That oil will only enrich a select few locals business and political leaders as well as the executives and stockholders of the oil corporations.

It might, if the world is running out of oil and the price rises as a result. Also, the leaders who decided to start the current war drastically underestimated its cost and may have thought it would be a smart investment. Marco polo 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they did underestimate it, amongst themselves, they just lied about the cost to get approval for the war, which never would have happened had they said it would cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. (That's getting to be serious money, even for the US.) "A few billion dollars here and a few billion there, and sooner or later it adds up to be real money". StuRat 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider land a natural resource, then the War of 1812 (with England), Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War could all be said to be, at least in part, about gaining or holding land. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that the Spanish-American War would count but the Revolutionary War would have to count. Rmhermen 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Desert Storm was initiated over the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Iraq claimed to invade Kuwait over slant-drilling of oil (a natural resource). The U.S. entered the war to protect Kuwait (and whatever oil-drilling practices they were doing). Looking at a map, it is apparent that if Iraq held Kuwait it would also gain the natural resourse of a sea-connected port - which the U.S. denied by entering the war. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq already had a sea-connected port at Umm Qasr. Rmhermen 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason Japan entered WWII was to secure access to oil and other resouces. Clarityfiend 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Wars are probably the most obvious example. For "countries involved" you could list the various Native American groups or nations. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, (though I'm a bit surprised that he's taking that particualar position). People so often speak of the war as being "all about oil". There's a lot of truth to that phrase, but it's all too often taken out of context. The fact that Saddam had oil enabled him to prop up his regime, to dole out cash to the families of terrorists, to afford costly wars of aggression, to develop chemical weapons to be used in those wars, and even to build a nuclear power plant at Osiraq. Yes it was indeed, in a sense at least, "all about oil". Yet it had nothing to do with the US "stealing" oil from Iraq to serve American greed. Loomis 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put Loomis. But I don't see how the Revolutionary War was fought for recources, unless you mean the taxes they didn't want to pay? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he means it was a war to control the land of the 13 colonies, as well as the land to the west. StuRat 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what they've been saying for the last 230 years... Maybe it's a coverup. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dominatrix - how to?

Odd question - but I'm relatively new to the world of being dominant and I'm just wondering if anyone can provide any insight on ways to determine what would be good things to use for humiliation with someone? Aside from basic stuff (someone is overweight, etc)... how do you figure out what someone's "buttons" are? Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing domination with humiliation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Humiliation IS a form of domination :) Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Read a few of these listings, and you'll get a bit of an idea. Also have you checked some of the external links on the BDSM page? I have a friend who does it professionally, and I'd be happy to give you some tips, but IMO it'd be a bit too prurient for the main board, so if after you've done some reading you still need info, post to my talk page and I'll tell you privately. Anchoress 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I had expected Anchoress to know the answer to this question. :-) StuRat 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To be an effective dominitrix, one must be both assertive and subtle. Knowing what works as humilation is entirely dependant on the circumstances. Some like it hot, some like it sharp. Mathiemood 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

US residency after 5 years

is it true that there is going to be a law that says that every illegal who has been in the US for 5 years or more when the law is passed (next year I believe) will get the residency?.--Cosmic girl 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to predict the future. There may be such a law under consideration, but until it survives any media attention and passes, we don't know whether it will. Marco polo 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You could look through United States immigration debate and its links. I don't see any mention of a five year plan but do see that Bush specifically opposed a general amnesty as opposed to a "immigration pathway". It would not be unprecedented: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized 2.7 million immigrants who had been in the country four years. Rmhermen 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

iron man

i was just reading the iron man article and it says that the song Gets me through, has lyrics resembling iron man. no, actually it doesn't. the lyrics are," im not the antichrist or the eye of man." not iron man.Jk31213 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics website all seem to diasgree with you including I Right - Misheard Lyrics which mentions this mishearing. Rmhermen 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)