From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Humanities reference desk How to ask a question Search first. Wikipedia is huge, and you can probably find the answer to your question much quicker by looking for it yourself. If there's no useful information on Wikipedia, the internet is a great resource too, so also try a search engine such as Google. Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first. Include a title and a question. It's easier for our volunteers if question formatting is consistent. Be specific. Clearly state your question and include any information that might help to understand the context (for example, a wikilink or a link to an online resource). If your question deals with local or national issues, make sure you specify what area of the world it applies to. Don't provide contact information, such as your e-mail address, home address, or telephone number. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Sign your question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your question, to let the reference desk know who's asking. Be patient. Your question probably won't be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. Questions are normally answered at the same page on which they were asked. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead. After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How to answer a question Be thorough. Provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated. Provide links when available, such as wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer. Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual Virtual classroom

Contents 1 March 29 1.1 Born in the wrong ethnicity 1.2 legal terminology 1.3 Religious views on Waco 1.4 Mussolini 1.5 Martinique 1.6 Guantanamo Bay 1.7 Plea Bargain Gone Bad 1.8 'Trex' as used by Martin Amis 1.9 Impeachment 1.10 Iranian criminal acts 1.11 Nelson Mandela 1.12 The use of laudanum in the Victorian era? 1.13 1907 1.14 eastern religon Jane 1.15 Difficult piece 1.16 Continuity of government 2 March 30 2.1 Help Before I Lose Everything 2.2 How much was a gram of gold worth in Europe in May of 1961? 2.3 Bush v. Gore per curiam 2.4 Selling at a loss 2.5 Native American Saint 2.6 Keeping up with the Joneses Article 2.7 USA-China relations 3 March 31 3.1 US Electoral Reform 3.2 USA elections voter turnout 3.3 Trade Partners of Singapore 3.4 Ten Commandments and Ten Plagues 3.5 identification of portray 3.6 Iranian captives 3.7 Plastic Surgery Addiction 3.8 Law breaking 3.9 Two governmental questions 3.10 False Messiah 3.11 South African constitutional crisis 4 April 1 4.1 Discontinued Action 4.2 Aircraft carrier design 4.3 Literary Influences

[edit] March 29

[edit] Born in the wrong ethnicity

If transsexuality is the belief that one was born in the wrong sex, and therianthropy the belief that one was born in the wrong species, what is the term for the belief that one was born in the wrong ethnicity? NeonMerlin 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuff luck? 71.100.2.150 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See poseur and wigger. StuRat 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the medical world, a transsexual is more technically/formally referred to as someone who is Gender Dysmorphic, so I went out looking for the phrase Ethnic Dysmorphic and found one reference, to a 2001 conference paper called "'How to Eat an Oreo': Using African American Research through Personal Narrative To Analyze Ethnic Dysmorphic Phenomenon" (Ashford) source. Jfarber 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since dysmorphic implies negative feelings of one’s self would not Ethnic Sociodysmorphic fit the following circumstance:

There are persons who belong physically to the White race (although they may have a visibly undetectable percent of Black genes) who posses mannerisms, speech, mind set and ethnicity of a Black person. Such persons are completely genuine individuals and do not fit either the definition of poseur or wigger. They are not ashamed in public to utter profanities, spit on the sidewalk, loose control, etc. They do in fact find it odd that White people are not like them and from this awareness one would expect they might briefly wonder if they have been born into the wrong ethnicity. What they do believe, however, is that Whites have been born into the wrong ethnicity. The descriptive term they use to convey this belief is to call Whites Whitey (similar to calling a transsexual a Homo). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.2.150 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Isn't those traits rather about class and upbringing than race? (Or maybe I shouldn't start discussing this, anyway...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The particulars above are provided merely to distinguish between the terms Ethnic Sociodysmorphic and Ethnic Dysmorphic. Ethnicity may embrace race or races, class and upbringing among any number of other common denominators between individuals. 71.100.2.150 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See Tim Westwood. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] legal terminology

What is the legal term used to define a person who withholds knowledge that taking too much of a drug or taking a drug such as methadone or chloral hydrate in combination with certain other drugs may kill? 71.100.2.150 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Criminally negligent? Professionally negligent? JackofOz 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking specifically for terms that apply to a person, you might also try tortfeasor, offender, suspect, defendant, person of interest, or even just person ... you might also try refining your question, since the factual scenario you describe doesn't give the first hint at who this "person" is, and what legal duty (if any) might be breached by this "witholding" of information. Once you've clarified the question, consider posing it to your family legal advisor, instead of Wikipedia. Just a thought. dr.ef.tymac 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The question can not be answered by my legal advisor since it is generic rather than specific although if you follow certain recent newspaper articles an example could possibly be derived from them. If the person were a lawyer for instance they might claim they could not be held liable since they were not a medical expert even though they demonstrated sufficient expertise to provide the drugs but withold the correct instructions. The proper term for such a criminally negligent person, however, now that I have thought about refining the question is a Criminal. 71.100.2.150 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if the question is purely hypothetical, or loosely based on newspaper articles, a conclusion of criminal or civil liability would still require more facts, at least more than you've provided here. For example, assuming the person is a lawyer, under what circumstances did she provide the drugs to the recipient? Has an attorney-client relationship been established? Who is the recipient? Is this just some random person off the street? A minor child? A police officer conducting a search in the lawyer's home? An armed robber? A pharmacist? dr.ef.tymac 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lawyer a) knew how much a lethal dose would be; b) knew how much to give the victim in order to get that lethal dose in the bloodstream and how the dose would have to be given (not all forms of administration result in the same blood levels); c) knew that the victim had other serious health problems (say, for instance, a massive, life-threatening infection that would reduce the dose the lawyer would need); and d) actually administered the dose himself or herself.

And there's that pesky ol' "reasonable doubt" thing. Let's hypothesize, for instance, that the victim has a long and varied history of self-medication that began years before the lawyer met the victim. Also hypothesize that the victim is afraid of doctors and won't go to one, and because of that refuses to have the serious infection treated properly. The fever and discomfort from the infection both make it difficult for the victim to sleep or to concentrate, perhaps causing them to take more of a drug than they would normally take. (Also take into consideration the fact that the drug has a relatively narrow therapeutic window, and is therefore not very difficult to overdose on.) In other words, it'd be difficult to prosecute, and I'm guessing many prosecutors might shy away from it. --Charlene 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: The mens rea dimension of a criminal offense might indeed require a showing of a) through c) above, and d) might be relevant to the actus reus dimension, however those would still only be necessary for crimes requiring intent. Liability for criminal negligence could still apply, even if the lawyer did not intend harm to the recipient. Under such circumstances, the question is not what the lawyer knew, but what would a reasonably prudent person have done under the same or similar circumstances. It's a subtle but important distinction that is addressed in the article. dr.ef.tymac 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious views on Waco

I skimmed through the the Waco Siege and the Branch Davidian articles and I couldn't find the answer to my question. What were/are some of the views on the whole event by other religious groups? --The Dark Side 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would expect most established religions to view David Koresh as a false prophet. StuRat 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15. Clio the Muse 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mussolini

Someone told me that Mussolini kept two pictures on his desk, one of himself and one of someone else. Is there any validity to this, and if so, who was the other person? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One with Claretta Petacci on one side and Donna Rachelle on the other (just in case)? Clio the Muse 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have guessed the other pic was Manfred von Richthofen, while he was suffering from some sickness. In other words, an "ill ace". :-) StuRat 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinique

If you have been to Martinique (or any of the other overseas areas controlled by France) does that technically mean you have been to the nation of France

You have certainly been to one of the Overseas departments of France, now more correctly known as Overseas regions. Clio the Muse 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the "overseas areas controlled by France" are overseas departments. There are other kinds, which may be better considered dependencies and not part of France itself. So it depends on which specific place you've been to. As for the overseas departments themselves, they are part of France just as Hawaii is part of the US. --Anonymous, March 29, 2007, 06:05 (UTC).

Very true. This was highlighted when the French did nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. Many neighbouring countries that objected to the tests, suggested France let off her bombs in her own backyard, to which the French replied, "We are doing exactly that. French Polynesia is as much a part of France as Paris is". JackofOz 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanamo Bay

This is a hypothetical situation if your were born in the US controlled part of Guantanamo Bay would be considered a US citizen and if so could you run for president? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• Guantanamo Bay is not considered American territory, just like the Panama Canal Zone wasn't considered American territory. So, if a non-American visiting there gave birth, her child would not be an American citizen. However, citizenship (even "natural-born" citizenship) can also be derived from one's parents, so Zone-born John McCain is still-eligible for the presidency.--Pharos 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, McCain's constitutional eligibility is disputed, though it is unlikely to be legally challenged. Marco polo 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely, I would say. There are some Americans of course who hold dissenting constitutional views on almost everything in the document. For all practical purposes, though, this is rather settled, considering that he's been allowed to run in the past. If you thought Bush v. Gore was controversial, imagine the Supreme Court denying the presidency to a winning candidate for being born outside of US territory. Not gonna happen, unless they have a sudden yen to start Civil War II.--Pharos 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite where this has been allowed to run in the past. Corvus cornix 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John McCain sought the republican nomination in 2000. He's never actually run for the presidency though. Not sure at what point the supreme court would intervene, should they be crazed enough to do so. Algebraist 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the US Supreme Court is that they don't unilaterally intervene. They hear cases that are brought to them from lower courts. Seems to me all it would take is an opponent to challenge McCain's eligibility on constitutional grounds; this might be seen as a more effective ploy than trying to beat him at the ballot box. But then, I might not have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. JackofOz 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea Bargain Gone Bad

My two sons were arrested on burglary charges. The older son turned State's evidence against the younger son. The older one (21 years old) had a fat juvenile record, while the younger one (18) had no record at all. The court granted the older son Youthful Offender status, and the Judge, Assistant D.A., Probation Officer, and our attorney agreed that the same would be granted to the younger son. The younger son's hearing was a week later, and the attorney was not able to be there, so a court appointed attorney was present, as well as a different District Attorney. Instead, the Y.O. decision was denied for our younger son. Is there some way this can be reversed, either by going in front of the Judge again at the next pre-trial hearing, or behind closed doors, or is there a way we can force the court administrators to stand by the original "talked about" agreement? One of the burglaries committed was at a local sheriff's house, where an illegal automatic shotgun was supposedly taken. However, the sheriff, who is a neighbor of our's, did not file a report because the gun stolen was illegal. Our attorney has told us that the local law enforcement really "have it in" for our younger son because of this sheriff's loss. Would a change of venue be appropriate because it does not seem that our son will be treated in an unbiased manner in this case. Any advise you may have will be greatly appreciated. We are desperate for some help for our son. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I won't offer any legal advise, but do have some general advice. Your sons are both on a path to a miserable life, unless you do something drastic to turn their lives around now. Prison time might be just what they need (the older son may have already done time, in which case it might be time to give up on him, but the younger son might still have a chance at a good life). Also, the older son appears to be leading the younger son into a life of crime, you should keep him away from that bad influence in any way you can. StuRat 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt StuRat is a parent, with advice like "it might be time to give up on him". I recommend you don't do that, ever. JackofOz 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No question about it you need professional legal advice. While your sons may have at one time found "sanctioned" careers as thieves with the CIA, the CIA only considers hiring applicants with resumes which included a long list of undocumented thefts, i.e., persons smart enough not to get caught, no offence to your sons intended. With a CIA career now out of the question the Mafia may still be hiring. 71.100.2.150 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your children's interests are better served by legal professionals, not random internet nerds. Emails edited out to protect you from spambots. --TotoBaggins 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your son really needs to talk to his lawyer about these issues. And if you and your son so distrust the lawyer's ability that you are turning to random strangers on the Internet, I suggest for the sake of your son's future that you scrape up enough cash to hire a better lawyer! I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but in some states, if the judge doesn't sign the plea agreement, he/she isn't bound by it. If that's the case where you are, I double my suggestion that your son find a good lawyer because it sounds like he's really going to need one. Good luck. Crypticfirefly 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The responses above already indicate the seriousness of your question, nuff said. Just 2 more points: seeking any "closed doors" negotation would be ... not a good idea, "ex parte" communication. You should seriously consider contacting the professional responsibility section of your State Bar Association, the number should be in the phone book, or google for it under "YourStateName Bar Association". The internet is not a good place to be seeking this kind of help. Please re-read Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Best wishes to you and your family. dr.ef.tymac 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Trex' as used by Martin Amis

In his novel The Information, Amis often uses the word 'trex' when referring to something worthless - the word seems interchangable with 'crap' or 'rubbish' - but can anyone tell me what it literally means? Surely he's not referring to the composite wood-plastic material that comes up when I google the word.

Thanks,

08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowing Amis I would imagine he coined the word himself to mean exactly what you say. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, it sounds similar to Yiddish/German "dreck" (crap, waste). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Trex is a brand name for a solid-fat product (vegetable fat sold as a solid, as a replacement for lard). See here. Trex, like lard, does have that rather nasty wax-meets-fat character. Perhaps if you look at the context of where he's using it and substituted "unpleasant fatty material" it would still make sense? But certainly Trex isn't used in the UK to mean any more than this (minor) brand, so I think Richardrj is correct in saying that his usage (whether based on the fat stuff or not) is uniquely Amis. Darryl Revok 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Darryl, he's taken the product name and run with it, made it his own; so almost a neologism, Richard, probably influenced by its similarity to dreck, Wakuran. Adambrowne666 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment

What are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a president from office? What other mehtods might be acceptable alternatives?

72.159.131.254 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, we currently have a highly effective way of removing a president from office - election. A president can serve for 4 years and then, if a plurality of the electoral college believes that another candidate is better, the president will be removed from office. Also, after 8 years, it doesn't matter how good the president is doing. He will be removed from office. Impeachment is rather silly in modern times. It takes so long to impeach a president that his term will likely expire before any impeachment process is complete. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It only drags on in questionable cases. Four years would be too long to wait if we had a President who was clearly insane, etc. In such a case the impeachment would proceed rapidly, as even those of the President's party would realize that having an insane President is neither in the nation's interest or the interest of their party. StuRat 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't think what little empirical evidence exists suggests dragging even in the questionable cases. The impeachment of Bill Clinton — certainly an excellent "modern times" example — took less than two months from House impeachment to Senate acquittal. In contrast, Andrew Johnson's impeachment, sans modern media frenzy, lasted over three months. Neither supports the claim that the process is likely to run past the term of office. — Lomn 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How long from "we want to impeach that guy" to "we need to create an independent panel to investigate him" to "we need to go over the findings of the panel" to "we need to start an impeachment hearing" to "we will impeach him now"? I wasn't referring to the final stage. I was referring to the entire process. For example, if Congress wanted to impeach Bush right now. They would have to vote on it (a good month or two of debates), then form a panel (a few months there to vote on who will be on the panel), then wait for the independent investigation (that can take years), then discuss the results of the investigation (a few more months), then vote on the formation of an impeachment panel (a few more months), then have the impeachment panel set up the impeachment process (a few more months), then vote on impeachment. I can't see Congress doing that all in a few months. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to impeach Bush now would, indeed, drag on, and likely fail in the end, as the evidence that he intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq to get war authorization is lacking. They could just claim they "misinterpreted the evidence". However, if a video tape became available with Bush explicitly telling his cabinet to lie to Congress, that would change things, allowing the impeachment proceedings to go forward. StuRat 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One note: a plurality of the Electoral College is insufficient; a simple majority is required or the election moves into Congress. As for the original question, we don't answer homework. — Lomn 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the other methods are coup d'etat from within, invasion and occupation from without, and assassination. Impeachment seems preferable to me, as well as several years overdue. alteripse 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kainaw points out, impeachment by itself is not a means of removal from office, it's only part of a longer process. That longer process is colloquially, but inaccurately, referred to as "impeachment". Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but both stayed put because they weren't "impeached". JackofOz 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu, there is a separate procedure for removing Presidents who are simply mad. See Amd 26, I think. Majority of chiefs of executive departments, plus vice-Pres agreement. If the President argues, it goes to Congress.

In parliamentary systems, you just get a vote of no confidence - with the crucial difference that they can be removed for purely political reasons - a president can only be impeached for a "treason, bribery and other high crimes" (USA). That's why the French 5th republic has such a strong president: a parliamentary system (3rd Rep) didn't work. There were motions of no confidence far too often for a government to achieve anything.martianlostinspace 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that, since probably every US President does something "questionable", they can all be impeached at any time for "political reasons", if unpopular, or can serve out their term unmolested, if popular. StuRat 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about having the insane Pres declared "incapacitated" instead of going through with impeachment ? In that case, let's say the Pres was caught "with his hand in the cookie jar" (if a Republican) or "caught with his pants down" (if a Democratic), in an extremely serious breach of office, say taking a bribe from one country to agree to declare war on that country's enemy. In such a case, where obvious evidence was available, I would expect the impeachment to sail right through, as it would be in no Congressman's interest to have him remain Pres. StuRat 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the US system, if the President is impeached and convicted, the vice-president automatically becomes president. He will certainly be a member of the same party and, at least in a case where the impeachability of the offence is marginal, it's possible that the other party would avoid an impeachment because they think things would be, from their point of view, even worse with him in charge. (Of course they could always try impeaching the VP as well, if they could find charges against him.) In a parliamentary system, if the parliament votes no confidence in the present government (= US "administration"), it's possible that some other party (perhaps a new coalition) will be able to find support of a majority of members and take power. This difference may be viewed as an advantage for either system, depending on one's point of view. --Anonymous, March 30, 23:54 (UTC).

I have been looking and I cannot find it anymore. I saw, I belive on the Whitehouse website, a list of investigations for impeachment. I was rather surprised that nearly every president has had someone in Congress try to launch an investigation for impeachment against them. Some actually wasted our money performing an investigation. Of all that work, we only got 2.5 impeachments (giving a 0.5 to Nixon). --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian criminal acts

If it can be verified by third parties that British sailors and marines did not in fact violate Iranian waters can Iran be charged which kidnapping or any similar crime that can be pursued and resolved in the International court? 71.100.2.150 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. International courts are dumb. HappyBlackGuy 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be unlikely to help, the Iranians would just ignore the court. A similar incident happened when North Korea decided they needed some Japanese translators, so they naturally kidnapped around 20 people from Japan, around half of which agreed to serve as translators, with the other half mostly dying of "natural causes". No action taken by the international community, short of removing the current government of NK by force, could ever bring about trials of those involved in the kidnapping, since NK is a rogue state, just like Iran. StuRat 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu Rat, not natural causes, but car accidents. An ordinary tragedy in the West, but almost unheard of in NK, where car use is not widespread. DDB 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually DDB I was just looking over the statistics on car and motorcycle accidents in Vietnam and it appears that fatal car accidents all over the world have risen well beyond fatalities of war or those caused by other conflicts (domestic violence, etc.). 71.100.2.150 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me attempt an answer based on what little I know about international law. First, if it turns out that the sailors were not in Iranian waters, then I would strongly suspect that Iran's actions in boarding their vessel and detaining the crew constitute a breach of international law. I note that Iran has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but I would suspect that its action nevertheless violates customary international law and possibly Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. I do not see how the International Criminal Court (ICC) would have any jurisdiction, especially since neither Iran nor Iraq has ratified the ICC implementing statute. Instead, the relevant court would be the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The United Kingdom (or possibly Iraq) might initiate proceedings against Iran in the ICJ, alleging that Iran breached international law. If that happened, Iran would most likely argue that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case: see Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. To respond more directly to what the original questioner asked, such a proceeding in the ICJ would not be analogous to a criminal prosecution (i.e. you would not say that Iran had been "charged" with kidnapping); rather it would be roughly analogous to a civil action where the United Kingdom (or possibly Iraq) alleges that its rights at international law had been violated by Iran. A sovereign state cannot be prosecuted for a crime, but may have liability for having breached international law. Hope this helps, but I am not an expert in this so don't rely on anything I've said. --Mathew5000 09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Mandela

I have asked this question before, but i forgot to keep looking at this page :( so here it is.

Im looking for a video of Nelson Mandela on a place such as youtube, where they offer code so that you can embed the video in your own site/blog/whatever.

The video i need is of Nelson Mandela saying the following: "Even in the grimmest times, I have seen glimmers of humanity which have reassured me that man's goodness is a flame which can never be extinguished."

I think it was shown alot on NBC or CBS as a service announcement in the United States.

Does anyone know where i can find a clip of this? i looked all over youtube :(

Also, if you somehow are able to capture it, please upload it to youtube and post the link here?

Greatly appreciated!

137.81.113.190 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IF the video clip was shown in the mass media, then it is under copyright, and we can legally do little more than suggest that you contact the network in question directly. Jfarber 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, who has seen it? I'm sorry but i forget what network it is on :( Thanks for the help Jfarber! :)

137.81.40.118 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The use of laudanum in the Victorian era?

Please help me:

I am writing a book review about the Victorian era and I need to know what were the effects of the opium based drug laudanum on the women who frequently used it at the time?

Thank you in advanc

--213.202.165.57 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our article on laudanum? A quick search is often the fastest way to resolve these questions. — Lomn 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The effects of laudanum on women were no different from the effects on men. For a superb literary account of the nineteenth century experience you could do no better than read Thomas de Quincy's Confessions of an English Opium Eater. The pursuit of the vengeful Chinaman sticks in mind! Clio the Muse 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to go in to this subject in a little more depth. Laudanum was used for a huge variety of ailments, from colds to heart conditions, for both children and adults. Women used it to relieve period pains, and for attaining the pale complexion so prized at the time. It was spoon fed to infants to keep them pacified, many dying of overdoses. Karl Marx makes note of this practice in volume one of Capital I found this quote from an English doctor, writing in 1873:

Anyone who visits such a town as Louth or Wisbeach, and strolls about the streets on a Saturday evening, watching the country people as they do their marketing, may soon satisfy himself that the crowds in the chemists' shops come for opium; and they have a peculiar way of getting it. They go in, lay down their money, and receive the opium pills in exchange without saying a word...In these districts it is taken by people of all classes, but especially by the poor and miserable, and by those who in other districts would seek comfort from gin and beer.

If you want to investigate the subject in more detail have a look at Secret Passions, Secret Remedies: Narcotic Drugs in British Society, 1820-1930 by Terry Parssinien, and Opium and the People: Opiate use in Nineteenth Century England by Virginia Berridge and Griffith Edwards. Clio the Muse 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1907

who was prime minister in 1907 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetpea007 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Wilfred Laurier. (Er, you meant Canada, right?) - Eron ^Talk 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom it was Henry Campbell Bannerman, heading a Liberal government. Clio the Muse 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you have somewhere other than those in mind, try List of state leaders in 1907. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eastern religon Jane

I am seeking information reaging a sect, I think Budist, near India- The name of the religion is Jane.

thank you

Sounds like Jane: Jain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Jainism is not a "sect" but a religion. It shares some principles with Buddhism, particularly a commitment to ahimsa (nonviolence), but I always understood that Jainism originated as an offshoot of Hinduism. See the articles Jainism and Buddhism and Jainism and Hinduism, although both articles are unreferenced. --Mathew5000 09:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be either a variant of Hinduism or Buddhism, nowadays, but a separate Dharmic religion, just as Christianity, Islam and Judaism are separate Abrahamic religions. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult piece

It's kinda a weird question, but what is/are regarded to be the most difficult pieces of music/tunes/whatever to play on a piano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylan-thompson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm, I seem to recall we had this question a while back, but I can't seem to locate it. Art Tatum wrote (and played) some seemingly impossible jazz works. Vladimir Horowitz wrote at least 3 versions of the Carmen Variations, each harder than the preceding one, and he kept the scores in a safe so that others couldn't work out how the hell he played with what sounded like 6 hands. Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit used to be the standard answer to this sort of question, but these days, almost any talented 20-year old pianist tosses it off as if it were scales (well .. ok, not quite). There are many, many other answers to this question. JackofOz 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is Conlon Nancarrow, most of whose piano music is basically unplayable, perhaps most dramatically in his "Boogie-Woogie Suite". Of course since he wrote for player piano perhaps his music doesn't count in the "most difficult to play" category. Personally I always thought Piano Concerto No. 3 by Sergei Rachmaninoff was a major contender. The page on it even says as much. Pfly 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Frederic Rzewski's The People United Will Never Be Defeated!. There's numerous pieces by Charles Valentin Alkan that could be contenders; and I think Ives' Concord Sonata has a few thousand notes too many to be considered merely "difficult." There's tons more. Fun question. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Leopold Godowsky wrote 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes. This is from our article:

• As a composer, Godowsky has been best known for his paraphrases of piano pieces by other composers, which he enhanced with ingenious contrapuntal devices and rich chromatic harmonies. His most famous work in this genre is the 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes, in which he varies the already challenging originals by: introducing countermelodies; transferring the technically difficult passages from the right hand to the left; transcribing the entire etude for left hand solo; or (get this) interweaving two etudes, with the left hand playing one and the right hand the other (as impossible as this seems). These are so taxing even for virtuosi that only three have ventured to record the entire set: Geoffrey Douglas Madge, Carlo Grante and Marc-André Hamelin.

JackofOz 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are at least two virtuoso pieces by Conlon Nancarrow for real piano: Two Canons for Ursula (1989) (that would be Ursula Oppens).

And getting somewhat offtopic, but regarding interweaving different pieces, have a look at one of the strangest characters in all music history: Pietro Raimondi. One of his compositions consisted of three different oratorios to be performed simultaneously, on three different stages in the same hall. This, incredibly, was in 1848. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks, Ant. I've checked Raimondi out in my old Grove V (1966 revision), and it seems he wrote tonnes of music, including 62 operas, 21 grand ballets, the entire Book of Psalms (!) for 4-8 voices, hundreds of vocal fugues including one in 64 parts for sixteen 4-part choirs, and so much more. The article finishes with: "Such stupendous labours ... also give one the heartache at the thought of their utter futility. Raimondi's compositions, with all their ingenuity, belong to a past age, and it may safely be said that they will never be revived". I, for one, would love to hear some of them, so get to it, record companies. Remember what Grove V said about Rachmaninoff - "monotonous in texture ... consist[ing] mainly of artificial and gushing tunes ... not likely to last". Yeah, right. JackofOz 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The first time I encountered Raimondi I thought I had found a nihilartikel. That such people could exist ... Oh, and I need one of those Grove Vs; maybe eBay. There's good stuff in that old edition. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I come into money, I'll be buying the latest edition, so I'll let you have my Grove V for a song. JackofOz 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Alkan's 'Concerto for Solo Piano', op. 39, 8-10, deserves a mention here. The sheet music is available on the International Music Score Library Project (www.imslp.org) - i think when following the sheet music whilst listening to a recording (preferably that of Mark Latimer), it soon becomes apparent just how technically difficult it is, not to mention how physically fit one must be to pull it off. In most recordings you can hear huge breaths as the performers try and cope with the force of it. To put in context how difficult it is, it is said that Liszt himself used to fear performing in front of Alkan! --194.176.105.40 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• 4'33 is impossible to play.hotclaws**== 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Naahh, it just gets difficult if the audience is noisy... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Double naah. It may well be impossible to "play", but it's at the very bottom of the list of "difficult" pieces. You don't even have to lift a finger. JackofOz 11:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get difficult if the audience is noisy - it's not supposed to be 4mins33secs of silence, but of the noises occurring in the concert hall/wherever else it might be performed, so the audience being noisy doesn't add anything to the difficulty. --194.176.105.40 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Piano Concerto by Elliot Carter, and the Etudes for Piano and the Piano Concerto by György Ligeti, are often considered the most difficult pieces in the piano REOERTOIRE. A cursory look at their scores shows these works to be far more difficult than most of the music mentioned above. (The Elliot Carter Piano Concerto, for instance includes doted septuplets in one hand against non-doted quintuplets in the other hand!) However, if one includes the most extreme examples of twentyish century works it is not difficult to find piano works intentionally written to be impossible or (nearly so) to play. For an in-depth study of such music Karlheinz Stockhausen would be a good starting point. S.dedalus 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another contender is Opus Clavicembalisticum by Kaikhosru Sorabji. --ColinFine 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity of government

My question concerns the Franco-American Alliance of 1778. In that alliance the United States and the French agreed to come to each other’s aid against the British. This alliance was made when France was under a monarchy. In 1793, Edmond C. Genêt came to the United States to try obtain American support in the war against Britain. At that time though, the French government was quite different from the one that made the original treaty. (It changed several times in the 1790’s.) I’d like to know if the argument that the treaty could have been disregarded because the government had changed was made at that time. If it was, were there any historical events or political treatises that were referred to? (Even if the Americans didn’t make the argument, are there any historical examples or treatises that would have leant themselves to that argument?)Sjmcfarland 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Treaties usually count for less than Realpolitik, but in fact George Washington had issued his Proclamation of Neutrality a fortnight before Edmond-Charles Genêt arrived in Philadelphia. Genêt hadn't hurried to get there. Also, US-British relations were, relatively speaking, warm - the Jay Treaty was signed in 1794. Finally, in 1793 the French revolutionary government looked anything but stable, beset by enemies foreign and domestic. In the spring the main French field army had been soundly drubbed at the Battle of Neerwinden. The French really didn't look like winners in 1793. And as you say, the government of 1793 had little in common with that which had assisted the US, for its own ends, in 1778. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sjmcfarland. I am not familiar with the terms of the 1778 Alliance agreement, but I assume that it was defensive rather than offensive in nature? What I mean by this is that the United States, in seeking French aid against the British, did not at the same time commit itself to going to a future war initiated by France? This would make no political or strategic sense, especially for such a young nation. It was France that declared war on Britain in February 1793; so I imagine Washington, and every other leading American politician, quickly decided that it was not in the nation's interests to become involved in a purely European conflict. The treaty itself remained in force, though, even after France became a republic in 1792, but Genêt's lobbying, and his encouragement of American privateers, was not welcomed by President Washington, who had the minister recalled in August 1793. By that time France was falling under the control of the Jacobins, the Communists of the eighteenth century, and I simply cannot imagine any American administration ever going to war on their behalf.

On your wider point, treaties of alliance in the modern world tend to transcend changes of government, unless one of the parties decides that it is in their interests to withdraw. The Bolsheviks withdrew Russia from the First World War, in defiance of treaty arrangements with Britain and France. The circumstances here were, of course, somewhat unique. For treaties to be abandoned simply by a change of government, and only by a change of government, you really have to go all the way back to the Middle Ages, when alliances and agreements were between kings and princes, rather than nations as such, tending to fall with the death of one of the contracting parties.Clio the Muse 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the 1778 treaty applied only to the war going on at the time and was not intended to be permanent. -- Mwalcoff 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually continued to 1800, when it was finally abandoned by Napoleon at the Convention of Morfontaine. You will find the details, and more besides, here [1]. Congress had attempted to annul it in 1798, though the French refused to recognise this. In practice it was only ever effective from 1778 to 1783. Clio the Muse 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 30

[edit] Help Before I Lose Everything

My husband and I have spent a tremendous amount of $$ for our son's legal fees and are behind on everything, including the mortgage. Does anyone know of a lender for people with bad credit. We are desperate and have looked all over the internet, but companies will not help us because we are behind on the mortgage. For crying out loud, we wouldn't be behind if someone would refinance our home. Our credit isn't good cause things have fallen behind. Any help would be appreciated ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

• Wikipedia doesn't give legal or financial advice, but you may want to read up on the topics Predatory lending and Credit counseling first. Also, check out the links to the Federal Trade Commission and others within those articles. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, subprime lenders (who lend to people with bad credit) are going out of business in the United States, and credit is becoming much harder to obtain than in recent years. Marco polo 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As for finding someone willing to lend to someone in your situation, you could try making your pitch at http://www.prosper.com. It is really for people who are trying to get small loans to finance home businesses, but it looks like there are some folks there looking for loans in order to get current on their debt. Blinkystar 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Prosper lender, I can tell you that if your credit is as bad as you say it is, you're not going to get a good interest rate: expect to be paying around 25%-30%. It's better than going to a loan shark or payday lender, but worse than anything else out there. --Carnildo 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've gotten so far in debt that nobody is willing to loan you money any more, the only remaining options may be to either drastically scale down your lifestyle (smaller house, fewer or smaller cars, no cable TV, vacations, eating out, new clothes or shoes, alcohol, tobacco, or lottery tickets, etc.) or to declare bankruptcy. StuRat 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much was a gram of gold worth in Europe in May of 1961?

Any time I type in "historic gold prices""historic gold prices" on Google I get a bunch of websites talking about investing in gold. Toko loko 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Toko, it seems to have been about $35 an ounce in the early 1960s. You will find a lot of detail on historic trends here [2]. I will leave you to work out the price in grams! Clio the Muse 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold was in fact exactly $35 a troy ounce in the early 1960s, because the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold at that price. That works out to approximately $1.125 per gram. If you are looking for the price in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, you can look it up on this web site showing historic exchange rates. Marco polo 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One caution: If by chance you were looking for the value of a gram of gold in pounds sterling in 1961, the pound had not yet been decimalized. So, a gram of gold, though worth £0.4016, could not be expressed in those terms. The correct way to express that value would have been 8s 0.38d or 8/0.38 (8 shillings 0.38 penny). Marco polo 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Marco, you never cease to impress me! For an American to have some understanding of pre-decimalised British coinage is really quite remarkable, and I say this without a trace of irony. I know you won't mind one small observation about your calculations. From my understanding (and from asking my mother) the old penny and the new penny have quite different units of value. In the decimal system there are 100 new pennies to the pound, but in the old system there were actually 240 to the pound, or 12 to the shilling (20 shillings to the pound). In 1961 there would also have been half-pennies (480 to the pound). I am not quite sure what the 0.38 refers to in your calculation; but if it is full old pennies, then were are, in fact, talking about 3 shillings and twopence. This would then work out at, taking the existing 8 shillings into account, as eleven shillings and twopence in total, or in LSD terms (yes, it was LSD-pounds, shillings and pence) £0 11s 2d, or 11/2. £0.4016 expressed in pre-decimal terms is, I think, about 8 shillings and 4 pence, or 8/4. I hope this makes sense. Probably not! Clio the Muse 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clio, thank you for the compliments! As an American and an English speaker, I am of course interested in a historic currency that left such a strong mark on our common language and that also prevailed in the American colonies until they gained independence (and indeed for some decades afterwards). Anyway, I confirm that my calculations were off. You are correct that the price of a gram of gold in sterling in 1961 would have been close to 8s 4d. Marco polo 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Marco, you were right the first time. Assuming that your £0.4016 is correct, that is equal to (20 * .4016) = 8.032s (shillings). The 0.032s is equal to (12 * .032) = 0.384d (pence). Thus the answer is 8s 0.38d as you said: eight shillings and about 2/5 of a penny. --ColinFine 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the penny was already divided into quarters (farthings), so "about 3/8 of a penny" is the way someone would have said it then. Or perhaps "about a farthing and a half". --Anonymous, March 31, 2007, 00:01 (UTC).

Note to the original poster: when you say you searched for "historic gold prices", was that a search for three individual words or for the phrase? To search in Google for a phrase, just put quotation marks around it. In some cases this produces much better results. --Anonymous, March 31, 00:01 (UTC).

Wow! Thanks for all the response folks! Now on to write my thesis...Toko loko 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush v. Gore per curiam

Does anyone know for sure who wrote the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore? --zenohockey 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Ok - there's 9 Supremes. At the time, they were Rehnquist CJ, Stevens J, O'Connor J, Scalia J, Kennedy J, Souter J, Thomas J, Bader Ginsberg J and Breyer J.

In Bush v Gore, Rehnquist CJ wrote a concurrence to the per curiam. Stevens J, Souter J, Ginsberg J and Breyer J wrote dissenting judgements. That leaves O'Connor J, Scalia J, Kennedy J and Thomas J as the 'court' (meaning in this case, some of the judges) who wrote the 'per curiam'.

A ref here.

--Shirt58 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion was unsigned, and none of the justices or staff on the court at that time has stepped forward to claim or assign responsibility for the opinion. (I will not comment on what this suggests about the moral confidence of the author or authors.) So we cannot know for sure who wrote it. According to this website, the opinion was "apparently" written by Kennedy and O'Connor, but no sources or evidence are adduced for that deduction. Marco polo 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I interpret that lack of comment as a comment. JackofOz 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas joined a separate concurring opinion in which they indicated that they agreed with the ultimate result reached by the 5-to-4 majority but would have preferred to decide the case on different grounds. They joined in the "equal protection" reasoning of the per curiam so that there would be an opinion of the Court with a majority. That leaves Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy as the Justices who believed that the case should be resolved on the basis of the per curiam, and pretty clearly supports the conclusion that one or both of them wrote it. The conclusion is supported by an insiders' account based on law-clerk interviews conducted by Vanity Fair magazine, linked here. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting...especially the VF article. A bit alarming, too. Thanks all. --zenohockey 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selling at a loss

If selling a product at a loss is illegal under antitrust laws in many areas (such as California [3]), how are games console manufacturers such as Sony and Microsoft able to sell products at £100-200 below their break even point? Wouldn't they be very vulnerable from a competition/monopoly point of view? Laïka 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think manufacturers sell their produce below break even point. I understand that retailers may, in order to encourage further sales, however, retailors and manufacturers are different. DDB 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. If you follow gaming you will constantly see articles talking about how much XBOX and Playstations lose on the console equipment. See xbox loss and sony playstation loss for example. Also see the article Loss leader. They Sell consoles at a loss in order to make more money on game title licencing. As for why this is not illeagel with respect to anti-trust law, see the following paragraph in you reference article [4]

The Act also bans "sales below cost" by selling or offering to sell products at prices below the seller's cost in the intent to injure the complaining party or destroy competition.

This would indicate that unless someone complained of business injury due to the below cost selling, there would be no case. Since all of the consoles are sold at below cost none of the manufactures wants to bring a suit against another. Czmtzc 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also many other legit reasons to sell at a loss, such as being overstocked on an unpopular item, wanting to sell off stock before you are required to pay inventory taxes on them, going out of business sales, selling an item as a loss leader to get people into the store to buy more profitable items, selling off out-of-season or discontinued items, etc. StuRat 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But other makers of Blu-ray players complained about the PlayStation 3's price. Doesn't that constitute as a complaint about destroying competition, thus making it illegal? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Native American Saint

Was there ever a Native American saint?

According to this news story, Juan Diego was the first Native American saint recognized by the Catholic Church. Marco polo 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was he who had the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe. He was canonised in July 2002. The Guadalupe shrine is a site of great importance to the people of Mexico, and a place of pilgrimage of the sort that really vanished in Catholic Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. When in Mexico recently I saw hundreds of people walking from the city of Puebla to Guadalupe. Clio the Muse 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, some people call Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha a saint, though she's yet to be canonized. —Kevin 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping up with the Joneses Article

This article may be correct, but it does not go back far enough. The phrase began in reference to Wyndclyffe, the grossly large and ostentatious mansion in New York's Hudson River Valley built in 1853 by Elizabeth Schermerhorn Jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.241.36.32 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

If you can find a reference for that, feel free to edit the article yourself! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, it would be helpful for you to post your remark on that article's Talk (discussion) page for the sake of accessibility by subsequent editors, as this one will soon be archived. By the way, having your own User account is not obligatory, but you might find it worthwhile for tracking your contributions. -- Deborahjay 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many beliefs about common phrases, but without third-party verification from a reliable source most of them fall away. Look at all the stories people assume are absolutely true about "the whole nine yards", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", and a mistake being a "ball-up". --Charlene 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA-China relations

Should the United States consider China a friend or enemy? Trems986 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Treating them as an enemy doesn't seem to be an option now, as the US is spread too thin to afford another enemy. China is not at all helpful in the world, however, being quite willing to support the genocidal regime in Sudan in exchange for access to Sudan's resources, for example. They are also nondemocratic, tending to execute their opposition inside China, and also manipulate their currency (keep the juan low), to give them an unfair trade advantage over the rest of the world. They continue to oppress ethnic minorities, such as the Tibetans. Finally, they are huge polluters of the environment. So, the US and most of the world would be better off if the current Chinese government did not exist, but there is no way the US or world can change the current Chinese gov, so it makes little difference. StuRat 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More like rivals who are also major trading partners. (The world would also be better off without the current American government.) Clarityfiend 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a question the reference desk cannot answer. You may wish to read our articles on People's Republic of China and Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, then come back with any specific questions.—eric 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Both? · AO ^Talk 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically the link on Sino-American relations would be useful.Sjmcfarland 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'should' implies that there is a definite, correct answer to this very complex question. Also. as days go by, the answer changes. One's very attitude toward China also influences the answer. Showing good faith towards a potential adversary is usually returned in kind. Vranak

Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Didn't work out so well. Clarityfiend 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, China is neither enemy nor friend, but a sovereign state with a scary attitude DDB 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask your question on the Wikiversity Help Desk and people will try to answer it. Please note that Wikiversity still has a much smaller community than Wikipedia, so you may not get a lot of answers. But asking more questions there is good to encourage the project to grow and eventually be able to give complete and proper answers to questions that do not necessarily fit a reference desk. Of course, the Wikipedia reference desks will always be useful for people on the Wikiversity to find references when attempting to tackle difficult questions like this one. Good luck. A.Z. 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With a GDP that has grown at a rate of over 10% p.a. for the last four years [5] and a increasingly enlightened attitude towards foreign investment (see Economy of the People's Republic of China), it would seem that the most appropriate attitude towards China would be to regard it as a strategic investment opportunity. Gandalf61 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 31

[edit] US Electoral Reform

Has there ever been serious discussion about reforming the US Presidential Election system? Example, reforming/eliminating the Electoral College? Duomillia 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been talk about reforming the US Presidential Election system for a long time, since Washington.

http://www.reformelections.org/ is a place to start. Artoftransformation 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, the Electoral College was reformed once. Because of the way political parties snuck into the system, the idea of candidates for president and vice-president running as a ticket hadn't been allowed for originally, leading to a mess in the 1800 election. The 12th Amendment changed the system to work as it does now, one that doesn't require running mates but where they don't lead to trouble. --Anonymous, March 31, 2007, 06:16 (UTC).

There has been quite a bit of talk about election reform, but not much of it is about the Electoral College. The main emphasis of election reform discussions and legislation has been in the area of election financing. There have been attempts to limit donations to a certain amount, make all donations public, etc., in order to counter the feeling some have that elected officials are being "bought" by major contributors. Public financing of elections is one more radical solution, which has been tried in some states. Another election-related topic that occasionally stirs up reformers is Gerrymandering, which is redefining voting district boundaries, by the party in power, to favor their own candidates. StuRat 04:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of the electoral college is difficult. Many people benefit from it - primarily everyone who doesn't live in New York, Boston, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisto, Los Angeles, or Atlanta. I'm sure there are other huge cities I left out - but you can see the point. If you don't live in a big city, there is a high chance that the electoral college gives your vote more weight than those who do live in big cities. So, why would all those voters voluntarily give up their advantage? Also, there is the fear that losing the electoral college will disenfranchise most of the country. If getting the vote in Los Angeles gave you the same numbers as getting the entire state of Iowa, why waste money carting all over Iowa? Just focus your campaign on the cities and ignore the rest of the country. So, how do you get people to give up their advantage and accept that they will likely be ignored in the following elections? --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As a solution to this, may I suggest proportional representation? Divide the electorate by the number of representatives, which gives you the required votes per seat. Then, after the elections, give a party a seat for every time they get that many votes. Simple, elegant, and fair. Why do it differently? And what is the point of 'one man one vote' if you throw half the votes away? No wonder turnout is as low as it is (see thread below). DirkvdM 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with proportional prepresentation in the U.S. context, is that most people want to cast their votes for indsividuals, not for party lists arranged by party bosses. AnonMoos 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the parliamentary system results in weak coalition governments, prone to collapsing at any time, of course, and gives fringe parties disproportionate power, as they become the vital "swing votes" any coalition will need to govern. (But, I must say, I've missed your anti-American rants, Dirk, welcome back. :-) ) StuRat 07:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't anti America (hell, it wasn't even anti US), it was pro proportional representation. I didn't bring up the problem, I just reacted to it. Even when I make a positive suggestion, you turn it into something negative. Or, to return the favour, I've missed your anti-me rants. :) DirkvdM 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

About the content of what you say, the Dutch government has one of the most representative parliaments in the world and fringe parties are rarely part of the coalition and any coalition (under normal conditions) has a majority in parliament. Only if one of the ruling parties (usually 2 or 3) has serious problems with the policies, the government will fall. As it should. In stead of (speaking purely hypothetically) a president continuing a war despite the fact that popular support has vaporised. DirkvdM 09:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw, I don't agree with your theory that the electoral college disadvantages the residents of big cities and advantages everyone else. In theory, the electoral college advantages small states, since they have a much higher fraction of seats in the Electoral College than their fraction of the population. However, this really applies only where the vote in the state is expected to be fairly close, because each state elects a slate of electors on the winner-take-all system. In practice, the current U.S. presidential election system gives an advantage to residents of "swing states", whether large or small. If you live in Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, or Ohio the current system gives you an advantage (compared to other systems for electing the president) because presidential candidates have a huge incentive to try to appeal to you. --Mathew5000 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple math: California has over 33,000,000 people and 55 electoral votes. That is one electoral vote per 600,000 people. Montana has over 902,000 people and 3 electoral votes. That is one electoral vote per 300,000 people. In other words, it only takes 300,000 people in Montana to have a vote equal that of 600,000 people in California. Why is this? Montana has no huge cities. California has three extremely large and many larger-than-average cities. So, the electoral college is weighted to give the rural state more voting power per person than the urban state. How can you argue that it isn't? Now, without the electoral college, Los Angeles has over 12,000,000 people. That is more than Montana. So, why on earth would a candidate ever go to Montana? Then, once elected, why would he ever pass any bill that favored Montana over Los Angeles. For example, what if the people of Los Angeles wanted to pass a law banning any and all cattle in the United States? It would pass because the candidate would be looking at 12,000,000 votes asking for the ban against 902,000 being hurt by it. The founding fathers understood this. I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand it in modern times. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw please relax, man. What some ppl (including myself) think it that the United States Electoral College system was very good at the time of the founding fathers but simply isn't 'soo good' anymore today. You argue that without the current Electoral system (which simply favours the smaller states, no questions about it) the interrests of the smaller states would be simply over-looked. May I ask you if it isn't the role of the elected Senators (two for each state, regardless of population) and Congressmen to defend their state interrests? I thought that the role of the President is to defend the national interrest (the interrest of the United States as a whole). The current Electoral system is simply unfair. If someone lives in a more populous state his vote (and his taxes) counts less than a vote of someone living in a less populous state. This clearly shown in this article List of U.S. states by population. I personally think that the President should be directly elected by the vote of all American citizens. If no candidate (and his candidate for Vice-president) gets 51% then simply make a 2nd run with the two major candidates.

The world and the United States have changed alot since their times. Today we have a much better system of communication, and a huge amount of information is available to the public in a fashion undreamt by the fathers. The US constitution has to change and improve with the times in a careful, slow, and especially open fashion: really informing the public of the reasons, advantages, disadvantages and then putting the issue through all due legal process. To use the argument our founding fathers knew what they were doing and we shouldn't try to improve the holy constitution is simply unwise (and the Amendments show the constitution was never perfect at all). Flamarande 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw, Your argument is based on the population of states but you have framed it in terms of big cities, overlooking the possibility of a big city in a small state (Las Vegas NV for example). But more fundamentally, your argument overlooks the effects of the electoral college in practice. Utah is a small state but it is virtually ignored in presidential elections. Why? Because it is considered a safe Republican state; neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate has any real incentive to campaign there. Other small states like New Hampshire do get attention from presidential candidates. Similarly, large swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio get a huge amount of attention from presidential candidates, because a few thousand votes one way or the other in one of those states might decide the election. (Or a few hundred votes, as in 2000.) Those are big states with many big cities, yet in the current context they are huge beneficiaries of the Electoral College electoral system. That undermines your argument. --Mathew5000 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a structural reason why the Electoral College will never be eliminated as long as the present constitution is in place. This is the requirement that any constitutional amendment be approved by three quarters of the states. The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to votes from states with a population lower than the mean (that is, less than one fiftieth of the U.S. population), because every state gets two additional votes (representing its senators) in addition to its votes allocated by population. However, 33 states (a majority) have populations below the mean, so the Electoral College increases the voting power of a majority of states. On the other hand, 63% of the U.S. population lives in the 17 states with populations above the mean, and each of their votes has less weight than the votes of the 37% who live in small states. In some cases, this can be quite extreme. For example, the vote of a resident of Wyoming carries about 4 times as much weight in presidential elections as the vote of a resident of California, New York, or Texas. However, because a majority of states benefit from this system, and because constitutional amendments require the approval of 3/4 of states (rather than 3/4 of the population), this system will not be changed unless the method for amending the Constitution is changed. Marco polo 14:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A structural reason? Try also: "the system works soo well for certain rich factions who fund too many politicians and the both sides of the isle" excuse. Flamarande 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, in response to Kainaw's post above (which came subsequent to my last post), I would point out that the framers of the Constitution did not include these provisions out of an altruistic concern for the interests of people living in underpopulated areas. They did so because they had to convince the smaller of the 13 states then in existence to ratify the new constitution. It was of course in the interest of the larger states to have the smaller states as part of the union, whose territory would otherwise have been discontinuous. Therefore, the framers included provisions in the Constitution that boosted the power of the smaller states, and the larger states at the time accepted these provisions as the price of unity. Marco polo 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA elections voter turnout

I recently heard about voter turnout in the USA being below 40%, so I decided to look that up, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have that info (only for presidential elections) and oddly I can't find it anywhere else. Is this kept a secret?  :) http://fairvote.org/e_news/election2002.htm speaks of roughly 39% in 2002. Roughly?? Is that not known? (btw, it goes on to say that "that's the lowest voter turnout in the established democratic world for elections of a national legislature."). Voter turnout only gives the percentage for half the elections, the ones that coincide with presidential elections. Somehow those are higher (why?). But surely there must be some reliable exact source for this. DirkvdM 06:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They are higher because people care more about electing a President and Congressman (and maybe a Senator) than they do about just electing a Congressman (and maybe a Senator). StuRat 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to come up with an exact percentage. A percentage is based on a fraction with a numerator (in this case the number who voted) and a denominator (the number who could have voted). While the numerator is known in this case, the denominator is tricky. Should it be the total number of people over age 18? We could probably get a fairly reliable estimate of that number. Should it be the total number of people properly registered to vote? This is a substantially smaller number than the first (because many people eligible to vote do not register or are incorrectly registered), and it would generate a higher percentage. What about the people who are disqualified to vote because of mental illness or criminal records? They should be excluded from the percentage because they cannot register or vote, but those numbers are unknown or very difficult to obtain. Hence the uncertainty. Marco polo 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the estimates are not a secret and can be found if you search for them, even if they aren't on Wikipedia. Marco polo 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, try this link for example [6]. Search for the number 94. On the same site I found also this [7], but be careful in interpreting the provided data. Please notice that I don't vouch for the site itself. Flamarande 14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course I meant the percentage of the total electorate, but yeah, some figures are for the registered voters only, so one has to make sure one is looking at the right numbers. Flamarande, I assume the links you gave are for the house of representatives, but they don't say for which year. If it were for the 2006 elections, when the absolute turnout was 76 million, then that would mean an electorate of 76 million / 0.466 = 163 millon. But that can't be right in a country with a population of close to 300 million where everyone above 18 can vote. Then again ... criminal record? What does that mean? Surely that can't apply to some 30% of the electorate. (Or can it?) DirkvdM 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the registration thing is a clue to the reason the electorate is not known for the US (something that is known for pretty much any other democracy, afaik). In the Netherlands, people who can vote are sent a card with which they can vote. So the government has to know who can vote and therefore knows the size of the electorate. Maybe in the US the government has chosen an easy way out and decided to let the people themselves do the registring. Might that be it? Seems rather fraud-prone, though, if the officials who do the registration can't check if someone is 'for real', so to say. (If they could, the electorate would be known, so that would eliminate the necessity for the process.)

Btw, I have found some sites that give the voter turnout for women or black or specific states, so it can't be completely unknown. DirkvdM 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, you are right that voters have to take the initiative to register. However, when they do, they are sent a confirmation in the mail. Also, when voters register, they have to list the address at which they were previously registered so that they can be removed from the register there. They can be asked to produce the mailed confirmation and/or identification when they show up to vote in order to prevent fraud. Of course, what often happens is that Republican officials will demand identification from black voters (who are known to vote overwhelmingly Democratic) or demand identification from all voters in overwhelmingly black precincts. And since such checks at polling places are random and somewhat unusual, voters often forget to bring their registration card or identification with them and are then barred from voting. (In over 25 years of voting, I have been asked to show identification only once or twice, but I am a white man.) Being turned away tends to discourage voters from trying again. Also, most local governments periodically send out mailings to confirm that voters are still at the address at which they registered. If the mailings come back undeliverable, or if the voters do not respond (for example, to a census), they are removed from the register. So the chances for voter fraud are limited, whereas voter suppression certainly happens.

As for the discrepancy between the population of 300 million and the turnout of 76 million in 2006, remember that the population includes large numbers who are not eligible to vote because of age or citizenship status. The population includes all residents, not just legal residents or citizens. The United States has a fairly large immigrant population that is without citizenship and voting rights. This probably numbers above 30 million. The number of eligible voters who are not registered is also in the tens of millions. It also has a younger population than most developed countries, so a larger proportion of the population is under 18 than in European countries. Finally, there are those with criminal records or mental conditions that make them ineligible to vote. This is a smaller number, but it is in the millions. Many of these numbers are not known with any certainty. So statements about the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted are based on very rough estimates, using different definitions, and subject to dispute. Marco polo 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Partners of Singapore

What is Singapore's largest trade partner? Thank you

218.186.8.10 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this website [8], the answer appears to be Japan, with the United States in second place [9]. Cnwb 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments and Ten Plagues

What is the difference between Ten Commandments and Ten Plagues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.118.20 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

see the articles: Ten Commandments and Ten Plagues.—eric 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Adn while you're at it, check out Ten Little Niggers as well, in case that confuses you too. :) DirkvdM 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] identification of portray

This image is from a BBC website (see image page for more information), unfortunately with hardly any information.

Does it really depict Henry Vaughan? (time, clothing, ...) If not, whom does it portray? Who could be the author, or at least, which time should it probably be from? Thanks a lot, Ibn Battuta 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to me a bit older Sir Walter Raleigh. Nebraska bob 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is neither Henry Vaughan nor Walter Raleigh. It is Charles I, the only English king ever to be tried and executed. He was born in 1600, and succeeded his father, James I, to the throne in 1625. His execution in January 1649 came in the wake of the defeat of the royalists in the English Civil War by the forces of Parliament, headed, amongst others, by Oliver Cromwell, who went on to establish a military dictatorship. You will find Anthony Van Dyck's classic three angle portrait of the king, painted in 1636, here [10] Clio the Muse 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, do you know the etching or do you judge by similarity? --Ibn Battuta 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ibn Battuta. I do not know the provenance of this particular etching; but I do know that unmistakable and tragic face. It is one of the most recognisable in all of English history. Clio the Muse 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian captives

Isn't it a bit obvious now that Iran's motive for capturing 15 British sailors and marines was not because they were in Iranian waters but because Iran needed some captives (hostages rather) to work out a prisoner exchange? Nebraska bob 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I disagree, but isn't that a loaded question? Bhumiya (said/done) 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Loaded in what way? Nebraska bob 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you always asking such clueless questions?  --Lambiam^Talk 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The question admits the answers "Yes, it is obvious" and "No, it is not obvious", both of which presuppose a false motive on Iran's part. The question might be better phrased "Is it possible that..." or "Do others consider it obvious that..." Bhumiya (said/done) 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside the artlessness of the question, it is not the case that states have thoughts or feelings or motives. States act, and their actions may be illegal or legal. A theory may connect actions in conspiracy terms, but that doesn't give a uniformity of motive to citizens that constitute that state. Personally, I feel Iran is behaving as a pirate nation. DDB 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(following edit conflict in response to Bhumiya's question)... Consider the following:

1. 1. 1. My home page has been Google News for at least the past year and I sometime forget to wind down before moving over to the Wikipedia. The story about the 15 captured British sailors and marines is constantly in the news. The most recent story (just prior to my asking this question) was that the whole rowel is really so that the British "hostages" can be used in a prisoner exchange as suggested by Iranian demands. With news fresh on the mind it is hard to remember that not everyone's home page is pointed at Google and that for some readers such news might not seem familiar.
      2. Historical background perspective: the current president of Iran was said prior to his “election” in several news reports by former American hostages of Iran to be one of the students who led the hostage taking. Iran did in fact take Americans hostages by overrunning the American embassy in Iran and the current president of Iran does look very much like one of the student leaders responsible for this form of terrorism. Today we have an Iran that still thinks this sort of childish behavior is the way to get what it wants and that it will not come back to haunt them.
      3. Recent background perspective:
         1. In violation of UN mandates several Iranians were arrested for being deep inside Iraqi territory, eliminating the possibility of an inadvertent technical border crossing in a situation where death occurs every hour as the result of the presence of insurgents; some of which are from Iran.
         2. Iran is the recent recipient of UN sanctions resulting from its refusal to stop production of material which can be used to build a nuclear bomb.
         3. Iran is in a state of defiance and did in fact threaten illegal action if sanctions were instituted by the UN.
      4. Both the UN and the US back Britain.
         1. Satellite data confirms the coordinates given by the British as to the location of the sailors and marines at the time of their capture.
         2. The captain of the vessel which the British searched confirms that his vessel was never in Iranian waters. Not even in waters which Iran claims to belong to Iran.
         3. President Bush has called the captured British sailors and marines “hostages.”
         4. Iran has taken, in this instance, the same politico-criminal course of action it has always taken since claiming to become a Marxist/Islamofascist state and the disposal and death of the Shah, who was supported by both Britain and the US.

Hence: it is very obvious and easy for me to conclude that Iran's motive for capturing 15 British sailors and marines is “…not because they were in Iranian waters but because Iran needed some captives (hostages rather) to work out a prisoner exchange...” I did assume that the conclusion I had reached would be in sync with the majority of other Wikipedians but that it needed airing anyway. If my intent had been to ask a "loaded question" I would have merely asked what other demands, besides a prisoner exchange, Iran had most recently made. Nebraska bob 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good source for your statement that "Satellite data confirms the coordinates given by the British as to the location of the sailors and marines at the time of their capture"? If so please add it to the article 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. --Mathew5000 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Surgery Addiction

How is the present trend of addiction to plastic surgery in the US explainable?

Whats the whole point of defying the laws of nature and trying to luk pretty...

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Plastic_surgery#Addiction_to_cosmetic_surgery. In future, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title.

dr.ef.tymac 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjvenus, is that you?  --Lambiam^Talk 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law breaking

Can you break the law to uncover a bigger crime or something else? You can see this in a lot of movies where the person(who is innocent) escapes from jail, which I assume is illegal, and catches the real bad guy. Just to quench my curiosity, thanks.80.109.79.136 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Try doing it particularly in the US ... it will become facet of creativity....21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)~~

Generally, no. Sometimes, even movies depict inaccurate and implausible scenarios, just to keep a story interesting. Yes, I know, I was floored by that tidbit myself. There are, however, limited circumstances where a defendant can plead an affirmative defense. This is the legal equivalent of saying "yes, your honor, my actions violated blah blah statute, but I had a good reason ... [insert excuse here]."

To my knowledge, however, there is no jurisdiction that allows inmates to bust out of prison in order to track down the one armed man. dr.ef.tymac 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the really quick answer 80.109.79.136 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

However, just because something isn't legal doesn't mean that they'll prosecute it. People who are wrongfully convicted may subsequently receive compensation, and if the scenario in The Fugitive really happened, I think many people would feel that that compensation should include being pardoned (or granted immunity) for the escape.

Has it ever happened in real life that someone escaped from prison and, while a fugitive, found evidence that proved their innocence?

--Anonymous, April 1, 2007, 00:20 (UTC).

Good question. Although it is too obvious to mention that incarcerated people are exonerated all the time, cases like the one you mention are not likely to be well-documented, since going back to the authorities with proof of innocence would tend to defeat the purpose of busting out in the first place. Unless, of course, you happen to be writing a screenplay. dr.ef.tymac 04:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An important consideration is the construction of laws. Laws may exist which are mutually exclusive. One example is Jack Lang's NSW Government of the nineteen thirties. The Sydney Harbour Bridge was built, and Lang threatend to not pay back the loans. The Australian federal government assumed authority over revenue, to enforce the rule of law. The night before federal law went into force, The state government withdrew every dollar from their bank accounts, intending to run the state on cash. The upshot was Lang was dismissed as Premier of NSW. DDB 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He was dismissed by the Governor of NSW, Sir Philip Game, because under the Westminster parliamentary system, the government is dependent on the pleasure of the head of state (in this case, the Queen's representative in NSW). Whether Lang acted illegally in withdrawing those funds before the act prohibiting such action had come into force is a question for the courts. Game thought it was illegal, which was his stated reason for dismissing Lang, but under the separation of powers principle, the viceroy is in no position to make such a call. The best he should have done was to warn Lang of his concerns. Lang had the confidence of the parliament, after all. Lang was certainly never charged with any illegal act, much less convicted. JackofOz 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In general you or anyone else can break any law as long as you are willing to pay the penalty. Many persons do in fact break the law for such arcane things like legislative research, expediency, political protest, criminal intent all believing their violations are justified. This is why we have courts to determine whether the law was broken and if so whether justified or not. In short if you do not want to do the time then don't do the crime. 71.100.167.232 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two governmental questions

1. Has a monarchy ever existed within a republican federal state?
2. Would it be unconstitutional for a U.S. state to replace its governor with a constitutional monarch, or to create a figurehead monarchy alongside its governor? Does U.S. law exclude the possibility of a King of Idaho or (to give a more plausible example) a revived Hawaiian monarchy? Not that such a thing would occur, but I'm curious as to whether it is expressly unconstitutional. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To attempt to answer your second question, Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." Presumedly, this would extend to the states as well, and as such no state could grant a noble title to its leader. GreatManTheory 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms, Bhumiya, monarchies and republics are mutually exclusive forms of government. I imagine if the people of the United States as a whole decided to change from one state of governance to another (King George IV?) there would be no significant problem; but if an individual state made this decision it would presumably have to secede from the Union, and we know from history the trouble that has caused. Clio the Muse 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I too, will duck past question 1, although the answer will be interesting when it arrives. Question 2, however, is a bit more straightfoward:

• state governments (just like the federal govt) are governed by executive, judicial and legislative branches
• the roles of the respective branches are established in the constitution of each state, and interpreted by the various statutes and court cases within that state's jurisdiction
• to my knowledge, no state constitution expressly permits a "monarchy" ... niether as an adjunct to the co-equal branches, nor as a subsitute for, nor as an augmented form of, the executive branch
• in order to establish such a "monarchy", it would have to be permitted under the relevant state constitution
• even if such a change were enacted under a state constitution, it could be contested as unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in relevant part:

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
   nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States 
   respectively, or to the people.

This has been interpreted by constitutional scholars as saying (roughly) "Federal power is only as big as the states allow it to be, state power is only as big as the people allow it to be, the people are the ultimate seat of official authority."

Consequently, a "state monarchy" (constitutional or otherwise) could easily be argued as inconsistent with the tenth amendment. dr.ef.tymac 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'm not sure about question 1, but you might want to check State of Jefferson. For some reason I seem to recall someone declaring himself "king" of that 'state', but then any crackpot can do that, and any crackpot (like me) can give wrong refdesk answers :) dr.ef.tymac 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti US rhetoric is popular worldwide, among the political left. Occasionally, the US is compared to the Roman Republic. The Emperors of the Roman Republic (from Augustus on) seem to fulfil your first question criteria. I would point out the linguistic pitfalls of the question, in that it is possible to write something that isn't true. Linguistically, a republic head may name themselves king, and be recognised as king, but then their nation would not, technically, be a republic. DDB 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Messiah

Yesterday, when I was asking my grandmother about my family history, she told me that my family that my family had been led from I believe Spain (I'm not sure exactly where, I think we originated in the Middle East and came to Europe through Spain, but I'm not sure) to Russian Georgia by a false Messiah that styled himself King David II (my family is Jewish). I tried to look up this David II and found nothing not webpages on the Scottish King. Does anyone know anything about this David? I don't have access to my family records so sadly I couldn't find anything on him.

I have no idea what time period this is. However, I'd wager a guess sometime in the Middle Ages, but I could be wrong.

So, any info? Thanks in advance. Lord of Light 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Might this be David Reubeni? There is also the earlier David Alroy. However, neither of these individuals really seems to fit in with the background information you have given. Your grandmother may be handing down a story about a more remote, possibly semi-legendary figure. If your ancestors lived in Spain they would have been Sephardi Jews, most of whom were expelled in 1492 by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. From the page on the History of the Jews in Spain you will see that a large number of those who were expelled settled either in Morocco or the Ottoman Empire. The latter would seem the most likely for your ancestors, as they ended up in Georgia. Incidentally, Georgia was not formally incorporated into the Russian Empire until the early nineteenth century. Clio the Muse 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm really unsure of the time period, though, so it might be Jacob Frank.

Frank would seem to be a much more likely candidate, though his hunting ground, as far as I am aware, was the Ukraine and Poland, rather than Georgia. Clio the Muse 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there also with a name sonething like Sabatai Tsevi? Who recanted at the last moment to save his own life? Edison 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The person you are thinking of, Edison, is Sabbatai Zevi, who lived in the seventeenth century. He did not 'recant', but underwent an insincere conversion to Islam to gain the favour of Sultan Mehmet IV. Zevi still has followers in Turkey to this day, known as the Donmeh. Clio the Muse 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South African constitutional crisis

Hello - HLA Hart briefly discusses a constitutional crisis in South Africa in 1954 in his book, The Concept of Law. I looked around, but we don't seem to have anything on this. Is this true, or am I missing it? If so, can someone point me to a good, brief summary? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the said crisis receives a bare mention in the page on the Union of South Africa, in the section dealing with the Treaty of Westminster. It is not entirely clear to me, but there is a section in the History of South Africa in the apartheid era, headed The disenfranchisement of coloured voters, which I think might very well apply to this. Clio the Muse 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 1

[edit] Discontinued Action

What does it mean when someone say's they have discontinues action without cost and without prejudice? thanks tre

Although the context of your question is not without ambiguity, it is most likely a reference to legal pleadings under the rules of civil procedure in common law jurisdictions where a plaintiff (or a defendant with a counter-claim) wishes to discontinue a claim against the opposing party, while still preserving other claims. (see e.g., http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part38.htm#rule38_6), (see also, Cause of action, counterclaim). dr.ef.tymac 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "without costs" likely means that the party who discontinued the action is not intending to pay anything to compensate the other party for legal fees and expenses. The phrase "without prejudice" likely means that the party who discontinued the action is reserving his/her/its right to reinstitute the claim in future (if, for example, new evidence should arise). --Mathew5000 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft carrier design

Hi all. I've noticed that on every picture I've seen of aircraft carriers, the "island" is on the right side of the ship. Is there any reason for that? Are there any carriers with it on the left? - Akamad 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Its on the left when the ship is traveling in reverse. 71.100.167.232 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is the wartime Japanese carrier Akagi with the tower on the left. Some others were complete flattops. The Akagi was lost at the Battle of Midway in 1942. Clio the Muse 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literary Influences

Does anyone know where I can find a chart or a diagram of the writers in the literary canon and how they were all influenced by one another, and the various influences they exerted in turn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.4.53 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

In which literary canon? My first reaction to this is that it might just be a little too ambitious, as any such list would be hoplessly complex. Would it be possible to narrow your quest down? Clio the Muse 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DAK Kopec has been very active in bringing Environmental Psychology to design feilds. Recently his book Environmental Psychology for Design (published by Fairchild Books) won the ASID's (American Society of Interior Design) Prestigous Joel Polski prize, but he is not mentioned in your discussions and prominent people of Environmental Psychology.