Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 5

= November 5 =

Egyptian Happyness
I just got an extreemly lousy question for my homework: Are the Egyptians happy with their government? I have no idea either why I would be asked that. So... how/where would I find the answer to that question? Help much appreciated MayhemMessiah Nov 4, 2006 6:16pm (GMT)


 * Why not just ask an Egyptian??. -- Chris 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lousy question? I would say that it was close to impossible.  How do you measure 'happiness', and this applies to any political system, not just the Egyptian?  Anyway, sorry if this sounds too negative.  Begin with the Politics of Egypt and Hosni Mubarak.  Perhaps it might help if I tell you that there has been a general decline in levels of support for President Mubarak because of allegations of corruption and concerns about the future direction of Egyptian politics.  There is also an active Islamist movement in Egypt, hostile to Mubarak's 'secular' form of government.  Have a look at the pages I have suggested, then we will take it from there.  Good luck.  Clio the Muse 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The results of this google search might give you a teensy bit of help. I agree that it's a really tough one. Unless there's a recent news article from a prominent media outlet that you're supposed to know about. OTOH, THIS google result shows a bunch of hits for a recent news item that the majority of Egyptians don't even know what an opinion poll is, so maybe it's a trick question, meant to convey the different way some societies go about assessing the opinions of citizens? Anchoress 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And here's a short article that addresses the issue. Anchoress 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll be specific about those who are unhappy with the government; your teacher will probably want examples. Anyways, there are several groups in Egypt that oppose the Mubarak regime. First, there are Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who favor the implementation of Islamic law in the country. The Brotherhood itself is widely popular (not to mention outlawed.) Also, there are reformist liberals who speak out against the president in the newspapers, and are regularly arrested. For examples, look through the categories Egyptian human rights activists, Egyptian journalists, and other categories to be found at Egyptian people by occupation. (I bet the reason many of them have Wikipedia articles is because their arrests were written about!) Then, there are millions of Egyptians (see Hepatitis C and this salon.com article) who were accidentally infected with Hepatitis C during a vaccination campaign against Schistosomiasis; call it original research, but I doubt that they're happy with the government. And for some other individuals who oppose the government, see Egyptian presidential election, 2005, which had 9 opposition candidates. Picaroon9288 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet the question still is flawed because it is framed as if all Egyptians had the same opinion. The question should be something like, "Are the majority ..." B00P 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Danish history
I'm researching Danish history for a novel I'm writing. Does anyone know what system of measurement was used in Denmark before the metric system. (I believe Denmark adopted the metric system around 1920, if that helps.) I'm specifically looking for the unit of measurement that would have been used for indicating the distance between towns, like the present day kilometer. Thanks! Lynne Jorgensen 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Danish units of measurement. And good luck with your novel. Clio the Muse 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You could check out the Danish version, too, and try to find other sources. The word "palme" for "palm of hand" seems slightly improbable, since Danish uses the word "håndflade". 惑乱 分からん 03:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous! This is exactly what I needed! Thanks! Lynne Jorgensen 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How long is a 288-year prison sentence?
Creationist and tax evader Kent Hovind may face a sentence of up to 288 years in prison. This reminded me that I've always wondered about why people are given sentences longer than a lifespan. For Kent Hovind, then, what does this mean in practical terms? If sentenced to 288 years, will he inevitably serve for life? Is he likely to be released for good behaviour or something instead, and how soon might this happen? (How long will we be free of him?) --Grace 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A sentence of that length would indeed mean that he would be imprisoned for his natural life, without possibility of parole. Unless, of course, he has a lifespan of Old Testament proportions? Clio the Muse 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a few reasons to impose such long sentences:


 * To counter the tendency to give "time off for good behavior". The percentage that a sentence can be reduced varies by jurisdiction, but can be 75% off in some cases.  So, that would lower it to a 72 year sentence.


 * Such sentences are typically the result of multiple convictions. For example, if there were 72 counts of 4 years each, that would total 288 years.  Judges are sometimes given leeway to decide if multiple sentences are served concurrently or sequentially, giving them enormous power to vary the sentence.


 * In the case of multiple convictions, it is possible to have some convictions overturned, and others upheld, so the large number of years may be needed to keep the person in prison after appeals.


 * Failing to give such long sentences can have disastrous consequences, as in the case of Coral Eugene Watts, a serial killer who was almost released. StuRat 07:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent explaination. I've always wondered why they gave someone a 7.5 life sentences, but I never looked it up since the law is very ambiguous in some aspects, thus lawyers exist. But now it makes somewhat more sense. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, we're talking US federal sentencing. There's no parole, and good behavior time is limited to about 15%. Are there mandatory minimums for these crimes? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This truly is a sad day. With Hovind locked away we will no longer get such gems as:

"'Sometimes .... people say you are not qualified to talk about a certain subject and then they will use the ad hominem argument 'You can not discuss this because you have not been trained'. Well, Columbus had no training and yet he proved the world was round.'"

"'Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say 'hydrogen?' I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock.'"

"'Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.'"

"'Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're kinda embarrassed about, The [sic] Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist.'"

"'The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this. Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it.'"


 * What a riot--Fuhghettaboutit 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a question in here somewhere or does this somehow relate to the previous question ? StuRat 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a question, it's a desperate plea for sanity in this insane world. Try reading Kent Hovind, then come back with some specific questions. ;-) Anchoress 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed Stu, that was related to the last question--which was about the infamous Kent Hovind; evolution gadfly; Yogi Bera's creationist doppelganger. Just read those quotes. You couldn't make this stuff up. Anchoress, you sound like a big fan ;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The last question wasn't on Kent Hovind, per se, but was about excessive prison sentences. Kent was only used as an example. StuRat 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he is. Who wouldn't be?  "They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it."  I'd only been up for 20 minutes, yet I got my first laugh of the day.  --Bowlhover 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And my post wasn't obviously a comment related to that question referencing that specific individual, even if tangential? And a discussion of the degree of attenuation is useful how? Another words, why are we discussing this?--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly enjoyed the quotes, so thank you. :) And thanks everyone for the real answers too. --Grace 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Its so if he is cleared of some of his convictions, he may still be serving a life sentence on the others, i.e. if someone killed 2 people, was given 2 life sentences, you wouldnt want him released to early for being cleared of one of them. Philc TECI 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense
Me and a friend have a bet I hope you guys can help us settle. Is the US Secretary of Defense in the chain of command of the US military? As in, if the Secretary starts ordering the generals around, are they obligated to obey his orders, or what?


 * Apparently, yes. Our article on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff touches on this topic, though our article on the United States Secretary of Defence doesn't say this explicitly.  See also National Command Authority, which deals with the situation where a nuclear weapons launch is called for - that both the Secretary of Defense and the President must give the order for them to be used (even though the constitutionality of such a rule is actually a bit dubious). --Robert Merkel 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

STUDENT COUNCIL HELP 2
Help! (again) the last time I was here I posted this question. ..

Where can I find some ideas and slogans for elementary type elections. He needs to find a slogan for his election posters. Thank You

PS: Make sure that the slogans are age approriate. G and PG only --Devol4 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhyming is usually important if you're in elementary school (or if you're Jesse Jackson). What's his first name (so we can suggest a nice rhyming slogan) ? StuRat 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) You might find some ideas at slogan.--Shantavira 10:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

His first name is Daniel and he is Runnig for 5th grade represenative. If you can come up with a slogan it will help so much. THANKS Chris


 * If he goes by "Dan", there's always "Vote for Dan, he's the man !". "Daniel" is a bit harder, we could go with "Vote for Daniel, the man you'll pick !".  Try some like that, and keep them short enough to remember. StuRat 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vote for Daniel, da dawg's no Cocker Spaniel!" ;) 惑乱 分からん 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

THANKS VERY MUCH WAKURAN

Peace out Chris


 * Alright! You're welcome... Glad you liked it! ;D 惑乱 分からん 20:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of focusing on slogans, perhaps it would be a wise idea to focus on the qualities of the people that are running. --Proficient 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is fifth grade. I wouldn't expect him to be digging up his opponent's voting record ;) -Elmer Clark 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Vote for Daniel, he's the MANiel"? Maybe that's dumb, but I recall 5th grade elections as being mostly about funny slogans, posterboard and glitter...Dina 01:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Country Music Awards
Who make up the Board of Directors of the American Country Music Awards...who determines who is nominated for an award?
 * according to their website it's these folks. Dina 23:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This page explains how the nominations and voting is handled. It is a bit complicated (vote for five in each category on second ballot) and not limited top the boardmembers. Rmhermen 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson
is it true that he will launch his own makeup line? --Cosmic girl 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If so, wouldn't you think he would have done so in time for Halloween ? StuRat 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Headshot! -- Chris 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Maybe he'll do it in time for Christmas, or New Year.  (However, that link I gave was from October 2005.  So the webpage says that he'll launch it by the end of 2005, not 2006.)  --Bowlhover 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe next year? --Proficient 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

aww, I hope he does =(...--Cosmic girl 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Play
I'm looking for a canadian play about nature, I can't seem to find one. -74.12.101.207 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Start looking here: List of Canadian playwrights. I saw one by David Young that takes place in an ice cave. Anchoress 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

racial origins of the Devil
All the images I remember seeing of the Devil seem to be a dark, swarthy Caucasian (Italo-Spanish type or Arab/Semite). Why is this?, and are there any more modern depictions in the West of blond & blue-eyed, black or Asian devils? Also, do Fundamentalist Christians think the Devil really exists and can take form on Earth, and if so do they always see a Robert De Niro look-a-like or visualize the above-mentioned variations too? Thanks, ==Robert==
 * There is a long history of turning your real enemies (or people you just don't like much) into fantastical or imaginary enemies but perhaps equating them with the devil is just too big a compliment. The devil is often portrayed as more bestial then human with maybe only his/her minions being swarthy type. Here is a good book of cultural depictions. I would say that there has been a tendency to shift evil from looking obviously evil to being more sly and subtle with evil being thought of as "just like us". Modern devilish depictors I can recall include Harvey Keitel, Peter Cook, Elizabeth Hurley and Al Pacino MeltBanana  22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lucifer in DC Comics is depicted as blond and blue-eyed, which I believe was started by Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. Hardly an orthodox source, but to me it sort of makes sense because Lucifer was one of the most beautiful angels before the Fall, and other angels are often depicted as blond and blue-eyed. I'm sorry I don't have any other answers for you. --Grace 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does the Devil belong to a race? No more, I would have thought, than any other divine or semi-divine concept.  If he does belong to a race it's the race of angels; and how does one depict them?  If you take the concept back to source you will find that he is given no physical description in any of the scared texts, Hebrew, Christian or Muslim.  It isn't until the Middle Ages that he takes on a physical form, borrowed, in large measure, from the ancient pagan divinities, most notably Dionysis and the Great God Pan.  As we move towards the modern age he inevitably metamorphoses into that which people fear most, in political, cultural or racial terms.  And as far as angels being blond and blue-eyed that is also a very modern, and culturally specific concept.  If the ancient Hebrews had ever attempted to depict such transcendental figures-which they never did-the one thing we can be sure of is that they would not have been seen in such a Nordic guise.  Clio the Muse 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See also, Fallen angel. The statue depicting Lucifer (1878) by Ricardo Bellver in Retiro Park in Spain, depicts a very "angelic" Satin (i.e. without any "racial" specifics, he looks like a healthy strong European), in line with the mythos of Dante and other earlier Christian and non-Christian concepts. --Cody.Pope 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Race implies continuation of a species and reproduction, which applies only to animate beings with bodies. Satan, according to the scriptures, is an immortal spiritual being.  We can't visualise spiritual beings such as God, angels and devils, so we attribute human forms to them to make the task easier.  But that's just our own construct; they don't have bodies.  This is also why it's so hard for most people to accept that it's not the case that we ourselves are human beings who have occasional spiritual experiences, but rather, we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience. JackofOz 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly off topic, but may I suggest that the difficulty of visualising immortal spiritual beings is not the only reason why it's 'so hard for most people to accept that ... we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience'? There are also rather a lot of arguments for the position that there are no such beings. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I rest my case ... (I think). JackofOz 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no you don't. Again: argument, not failure of imagination, is the main reason why I don't believe that I'm an immortal spiritual being, or that evil is a fallen angel. I can imagine it just fine, and once believed it, but I don't think it's true. I don't think this is obvious, and respect (some) people who disagree with me, but the question is one that can and should be rationally discussed. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from the fact that I get to choose when I rest my case and when I don't - since you've subtly manipulated me into reopening it, I will now choose to do so. :) I think it is true to say that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of spiritual beings, no matter how good their argument might be.  Arguments have been advanced forever for both the pro and con cases; some people are influenced by these arguments, some are not.  Many people who were totally convinced of the correctness of one position later change their minds.  The very fact that some argue passionately for the existence of spiritual beings while others argue equally passionately against their existence, seems to suggest that at the end of the day it comes down to the individual's personal belief system.  Either one believes in their existence or one doesn't, compelling arguments to the contrary position notwithstanding.  Cheers JackofOz 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That could all be true, but wouldn't support the claim I was disagreeing with: that the main reason some people don't believe that they're immortal spirits is that they can't visualise such things. Again: I don't believe this because I was convinced by argument that it's not the case. And incidentally, the fact that there is passionate, ongoing argument about a topic does not entail that the answer 'comes down to the individual's personal belief system'. That's just naive relativism. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Always remember Wittgenstein-Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. But what has any of this to do with depictions of the Devil, which are, and have always been, cultural and historical constructs? Clio the Muse 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ballot questions
I cannot find anything at all that explains to me what ballot questions (or whatever they may be called) really are or how they come to be included on the ballot. If laws are voted on by legislators, why then once every couple years are random questions included on the ballot for the general public to pass into law? Do all states do ballot questions? If anyone at all could clarify this for me or elaborate on the process/idea of ballot questions, I'd appreciate it! Also, if you have a good source/website that explains it, include that too. All my Google searches give are news about the actual ballot questions for this Tuesday. →  &ensp; J ARED  &ensp;(t)&ensp; 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Our article on this topic is Referendums. You might also check out Initiative and referendum and History of direct democracy in the United States.  Some U.S. states (mainly in the west) make it easier to get these questions on the ballot than do others.  Typically, an interest group (with an interest in the question to be put on the ballot) has to collect a certain number of signatures to qualify their question for the ballot.  Sometimes the groups sponsoring questions are grassroots citizen's groups, but because of the expense of collecting signatures (which often involves paying people to stand outside supermarkets and collect them), they are often sponsored by industry groups.  Marco polo 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is ironic, because I&R was originally a Progressive Era reform to try to give power to "the people" at the expense of the organize interests thought to control state legislatures. A short answer to your questions: Generally, ballot questions are put on the ballot through the initiative process Marco Polo mentions, or are put on the ballot after passing the legislature because the state constitution requires it. For example, a tax increase or change to the state constitution might require voter approval. You can visit the site of the Initiative and Referendum Institute for more information. -- Mwalcoff 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some states have non-binding referenda, while others have binding proposals (meaning it becomes law if passed). StuRat 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The terminology is confused. There are pieces of citizen proposed legislation (Including ones to revoke existing legislation), pieces of contentious legislation that the legislature wants to have an explicit mandate to renew (Compare the Parliamentary practise of dissolving legislatures and making a campaign on one main issue (EG. Nationalization of power in Quebec)), and in some cases the legislature is required to put some things to a referendum (In the United States, this is almost always a state constitutional amendment. In some states (EG. Tennessee) it's the easiest of several ways, in others (EG. New Jersey, Alaska) its absolutely required.). 68.39.174.238 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When did winking originate?
On the subject of winking...when did it start? Is this something that has been around for longer than we have records of?

I became intrigued on this subject because in my English class, we watched a production of The Taming of the Shrew where at the very end, Kate winks to show that her whole little speech about how women should be subservient to men wasn't what she truly thought.

It's not written into the script, so I was wondering not only if this sort of body language existed when Shakespeare's plays were originally being performed, but also at what time winking actually started. =) --chickenflicker 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Was this a movie or a stage production? If you think about Shakespeare's original productions in Elizabethan theatres, like the Globe, a wink would simply have been lost on most of the audience, too far from the stage to pick it up.  To be honest with you I think this is a question without an answer, a little akin to when did frowning or scowling or any other form of expression or cultural gesture start?  Clio the Muse 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Live audience, taped for television. I was thinking that my question wouldn't be able to be answered as well, but perhaps hoping that winking was perhaps a gesture like shaking hands, which has some sort of known origin, or at least a few theories about its origin. chickenflicker 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Taming of the Shrew has often been regarded as a problematic play in modern times, because headstrong Kate, one of Shakespeare's most memorable heroines, is apparently completely subjugated by the end. I've been involved in productions of the play and its not just a problem "politically" it's also a problem dramatically because there's really not a clear explanation in the play of how or why she changes so thoroughly -- it gets sort of rushed at the end.  Several modern directors have made the choice (in one way or another, sometimes more subtley than a wink) to imply at the end that either: a)Kate is faking it and will return to her old behaviour soon or b) she and Petruchio have developed a relationship of equals and she is pretending to be subjugated to help him win the wager. Either way, nothing of the sort is definitively there in the original text and it's all left to interpretation. So regardless of whether or not winking existed in Shakespeare's time, it's highly unlikely it would have been a part of the production.  However, I have a vague memory of some other winking occurring in a Shakespeare (though I can't remember where) which would come closer to answering your question. ;) Dina 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From Cymbeline a play I'm not terribly familiar with:
 * Posthumus.
 * I tell thee, fellow, there are none want eyes to
 * direct them the way I am going, but such as wink and
 * will not use them.
 * First Gaoler.'
 * What an infinite mock is this, that a man should
 * have the best use of eyes to see the way of
 * blindness! I am sure hanging's the way of winking.
 * Dina 02:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, from one of Shakespeare's contemporary's (mocking the audience of his plays): You will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering to sit by the women, such care for their garments that they be not trod on . . . such toying, such smiling, such winking, such manning them home ... that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" (Stephen Gosson, "The School of Abuse", 1579). (emphasis mine) Dina 02:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty helpful information, about winking in Shakespeare's other work. I had watched a 1976 performance which was in front of a live audience, but taped for television, so, to me, the wink was pretty obvious, but to those who were in the back row during the original taping...I don't know how they would have seen it. chickenflicker 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how it originated, but winking is mentioned half a dozen time in the Bible, e.g. Job 15:12, Psalms 35:19.--Shantavira 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Metternich's views on University professors and private property
Many years ago I saw Metternich (Prince Klemens von Metternich) quoted as having said that he could not stand university professors because none of them had any respect for private property. Is there any source to substantiate this, or any similar comment? (I do not need anything on his general views, or his measures,-- such as the Carlsbad decrees,-- on Universities, students, professors, censorship, and so on.) Many thanks, Stephen Scott.


 * I do not know of such a quotation, and there is very little in Wikipedia itself which might be of assistance to you: the page on Metternich is, to be blunt, far from satisfactory. As far as I am aware the chief thrust of his policy in the area of education was to restrict-or eliminate-the perpetuation of socially harmful doctrines, like constitutionalism, republicanism, liberalism and nationalism.  As far as the sanctity of private property is concerned I would have assumed that the views of most professors would not have been that be that far removed from those of Metternich himself. Clio the Muse 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clio,-- Many thanks for responding with your thoughts. Indeed, private property is par excellence an institution as to which sympathetic opinion can straddle the political spectrum between autocrats, aristocrats, gentry, and the bourgeoisie. I do remember once seeing some opinion, along the lines of that which I quoted, attributed to Metternich, and I posted my query on the odd chance that someone amongst the many sophisticated readers just might happen to recognize it. And I venture to add that, in my experience, academics are not, as a class, typically the staunchest defenders of property rights. (On the subject of property and economic liberalism, I am also fond of the remark often attributed to Guizot,-- even if perhaps at least partly apocryphal,-- "Bourgeois, enrichissez vous!" (It is taken up elsewhere on this website.) Thanks again, Stephen Scott.


 * You're welcome, Stephen. Sorry I was not able to be of greater assistance. Clio the Muse 03:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)