From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 30	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	April 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

Contents 1 March 31 1.1 US Electoral Reform 1.2 USA elections voter turnout 1.3 Trade Partners of Singapore 1.4 Ten Commandments and Ten Plagues 1.5 identification of portray 1.6 Iranian captives 1.7 Plastic Surgery Addiction 1.8 Law breaking 1.9 Two governmental questions 1.10 False Messiah 1.11 South African constitutional crisis

[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)

There is a great deal of talk about the Electoral College. The most promising possibility has been the National Popular Vote project. That project seeks to do an end-run around the Constitution by having states pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner, no matter what happens in their state. It would only go into effect if states representing a majority of the Electoral College agree. But even getting 50% of the states might be a problem. -- Mwalcoff 01:09, 2 April 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 [1]. Search for the number 94. On the same site I found also this [2], 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)

Ok, what you say is what I mentioned, that the registration would have to be checked. But if you have something to check it against, then doesn't that give you the number of eligible voters? Basically, it's the people with a US passport, minus those under age and those whose right to vote has been taken away, mainly for a criminal record. All that is known by the government, so it should be easy to determine the electorate, right? Or am I missing something? I still don't get what the resistration is about. I thought that was a US elections thing, but now I understand it's something different. Registration doesn't give a relevant link. Every time I try to understand US politics a bit more I just get more confused. :) DirkvdM 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This page has fairly comprehensive numbers for voter turnout for eligible voters in the 2004 election by state. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

US elections turnout
President (2004)	59.0 %
House of representatives (2006)	36.8 %
Senate (2006)	29.7 %

Wow, that's extensive. When it rains, it pours. :) Thanks. Some other interresting stuff there too, such as that 20% of the population of California is non-citizen (my niece is one of them). And no-one in the DOC ever gets convicted of a crime. So that's how they get away with it. :)

But to get back to the subject. Changing the URL gives the numbers for the 2006 elections, which I was after. Many numbers are, however, not for the moment of the elections, so they should be taken as a good indication. The number I was after is the number of people who bother to vote, which I get from the VEP, the voting-eligible population. Although the number of people in the voting age population who are not allowed to vote is interresting too (9.6%). That is never mentioned in the Netherlands, so now I'm curious why ... next project :) Anyway, the VEP was 206,963,852. That gives the turnout in the table to the right. I'll add those figures to the three tables. DirkvdM 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it that's the 2004 presidential turnout, since there was no presidential election in 2006. -- Mwalcoff 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, my mistake. But corrected now. DirkvdM 18:33, 3 April 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 [3], the answer appears to be Japan, with the United States in second place [4]. 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)

He's already confused; don't confuse him more! :P DebateKid 18:52, 2 April 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 [5] 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)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll document this in the article and here as soon as possible. At the moment I appologize for both myself and for the hostages for having given Iran, even for a moment, any benefit of the doubt. Nebraska bob 09:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say "satellite data", do you mean this photo of someone in a helicopter holding a GPS receiver? If so, it hardly constitutes "proof" because that photo was taken two days after the British sailors were arrested. Also when you use the term "satellite data" it suggests something different than mere GPS readings. I have read a fair bit of the coverage on bbc.co.uk and I have not seen any reference to satellite photos of the actual arrest that would confirm on which side of the boundary it took place. --Mathew5000 10:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the photograph taken inside the helicopter hovering over the Indian ship in the background of a GPS receiver, although "satellite data" appears to confirm the ship had not yet moved from the position where the inspection took place. "Satellite data" means triangulated radio communications and other positional determination methods including undersea buoys with satellite uplinks rather than military or commercial satellite reconnaissance photographs. Nebraska bob 11:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know in whose territory the seizure of the British hostages took place, nor do I think many people except perhaps a few in the Iranian military, the Royal Navy, and perhaps the US and British governments know for certain where the seizure took place. While I do not take the Iranian claims at face value, neither do I take the British claims at face value. After all, the British government has lied in the recent past in the run-up to the invasion of oil-rich Iran's oil-rich neighbor Iraq. I can see reasons why both the British and the Iranian governments might have reason to lie about this, as part of an effort to galvanize domestic support for the war that seems to be brewing in that region. If anything, the British were more in need of mustering public support for the British military presence in the Middle East, since British opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to a continuing presence before this incident. Now no mainstream British public figure dare speak out against the British presence for fear of seeming disloyal or of appearing to blame the probably innocent individuals (pawns?) involved. Again, I don't deny the possibility of Iranian treachery, but neither do accept the British claims as beyond doubt. Marco polo 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that the Iranian government is a monolithic entity. It is entirely possible that the Revolutionary Guard, who are the ones who did the abducting, are attempting to prevent any accomodation by the country's President in the current nuclear standoff, and is hoping to use this incident to torpedo his efforts. Corvus cornix 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the Iranian government is not a monolithic entity. (Nor for that matter is any non-autocratic government). Where I referred to "Iran" above, feel free to substitute "groups or individuals within Iran's power structure". Where I referred to "Britain" or "the British" above, feel free to substitute "groups or individuals within Britain's power structure". While I find your conjecture plausible, I think that there are other plausible conjectures and that we don't know anything for sure, except that Iranian officials (or groups or individuals within the Iranian power structure) are holding those British captives. Marco polo 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have trouble believing Iran hasn't got some ulterior motive. You don't take people hostage for passing through your waters even if they did it. If the Dutch were to capture Britihs marines passing through Dutch waters, I imagine we'd have captured a lot of them by now. The British are keeping an eye on Iraq, as far as I know they didn't even show intention of attacking or invading Iran, so I don't see what makes the Iranians so angry about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iranians are angry because of international sanctions imposed on them for conducting nuclear research that they say is for peaceful purposes. It has not been proved that their research is not for peaceful purposes. (I'm not saying that I believe that their intentions are entirely peaceful, by the way.) The sanctions imposed, which are backed by Britain, have severely impaired Iran's ability to spend the dollars that it receives for oil. Also, based on recent history in Iraq, the Iranians probably see the British as the accomplishes or lackeys of the American government that has been threatening a military attack on Iran (though a combination of tough talk and the movement of a massive fleet into the Persian Gulf). They may assume that the British will join in any American attack. They also have the historical experience of the British and the Americans working together to back the widely hated Shah of Iran before the Iranian Revolution and cooperating to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq still further back after he nationalized British (and American) oil company properties. This would explain why Iranians might view British intruders (if they did intrude, which I am not claiming to believe or disbelieve) with more hostility than the Netherlands views British sailors passing through its waters. Marco polo 15:08, 2 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. For future questions, 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)

Where did venus come from?? 21:16, 3 April 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 King'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)

Update: For question 2, it just occured to me you could also argue unconstitution based on Article Four of the United States Constitution (Article 4, §4.1) the "Republican Form of Government Clause" (RFOG) although based on precedent it'd probably be a tenuous claim, but the facts you forwarded are unusual, so it'd be worth considering. dr.ef.tymac 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update2: Oops. Already mentioned below (the user-inserted?) separation line. dr.ef.tymac 03:52, 2 April 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)

Except there weren't any "Emperors of the Roman Republic"; as soon as Augustus declared himself Emperor, it stopped being the Roman Republic and started being the Roman Empire.

While autocratic monarchy and republicanism are directly opposed, you can certainly have something very much like a republic if your monarch is little more than a figurehead. Australia, for example, is a sovereign federal nation, but we still have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. FiggyBee 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the Roman history is not quite correct, Figgy Bee: the Empire, it might be said, 'emerged' gradually out of the Republic, just as a butterfly emerges from a chrysalis. Romans were deeply sensitive to the possible dangers of a return of the old kingship; and although Octavian (Augustus was one of the titles he was given) gradually introduced a monarchical form of government, with the rule of one man gaining ascendency over rule by the Senate, he and his successors held outwardly to republican forms. Indeed, the very word 'Emperor' simply comes from the Latin Imperator, which really just means military commander. The ancient Romans, moreover, would not have understood the distinction between a Republic and an Empire. Octavian's power came from a variety of sources and titles, the most important of which was Princeps, which basically just meant 'first among equals' at the time, although it has since come to mean Prince. So, DDB is quite correct: the rule of Augustus was indeed a monarchy in the midst of a republic. It is not until the time of Diocletian in the third century that all republican pretence is finally abandoned. Clio the Muse 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly interested in the possibility of a localized monarchy being subordinate to a large federative republic, in the same way that, say, the King of Bavaria used to be subservient to the Holy Roman Emperor. I would be very surprised if such a situation ever existed, but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks for all the interesting responses. Bhumiya (said/done) 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, Bhumiya, that very monster is in the process of evolution, in the shape of the European Union, the new and Unholy Roman Empire. Clio the Muse 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There was also the case of the Dutch Republic, in which hereditary and somewhat monarchical stadtholders ruled the constituent provinces. Marco polo 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what about the Vatican? I'm just throwing this out there, but the Pope could be seen as a sort of monarch. I know the Vatican is an independent entity, but is it also subject to the laws of Italy or the EU? That might fulfill your criteria nicely. Someone who knows more about it should enlighten us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The Pope is not a 'sort of a monarch', he is one. He is both head of state and head of government, and as such is the last absolute ruler in Europe. The Vatican, moreover, is a sovereign city-state and international entity, and is not subject to the laws of the Italian Republic. Did you not read the article you linked, because it contains all of the relevant information? However, if you need further guidance on this subject you might consult the article on the Lateran Treaty. Clio the Muse 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

No one seems to have mentioned the most relevant part of the U.S. Constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." (see Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Republican_government). Its meaning is somewhat vague and disputed, but if it has any power at all, it's to forbid a state government from establishing a monarchy... AnonMoos 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States refers to the federal govt, not the several states. If a state wanted a monarchy, it is implied that the states have a right to not have monarchism enforced by Washington - but if they wanted it, they could have it. Also, it would mean a state, not the USA is granting a title of nobility.82.153.143.87 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Congressional Research Service annotated constitution says Article IV allows Congress to decide whether or not a state has a republican government. In Luther v. Borden, the US Supreme Court said it is up to Congress to enforce Article IV Section 4, although the court didn't say how Congress would do so.

I believe Nigeria, a federal republic, has some monarchs with some power over certain ethnic groups. -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of republics in Africa that contain kingdoms ruled by monarchs, but ones that have given up pretty much all governmental authority. Uganda, for instance, has several such as Bunyoro, Busoga, and Buganda. - SimonP 17:14, 3 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)

Opps. That's it indeed. Thanks a bunch for finding it, sorry for the trouble. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No trouble, Kevin. I'm glad to have been of help. Clio the Muse 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)