Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 28

= August 28 =

Porn
Who and what culture was the first to invent porn and what other technological advances is it comparable to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.133.23 (talk) 00:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * See pornography. You have to define what you are talking about before you can ask such a question because there are far too many definitions of "porn". -- Kainaw (what?) 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cave man. When cave men first drawn er, cave woman on cave wall, porn was born. 202.168.50.40 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In general terms, we know what we mean by 'pornography'. Any definition of it must be simply to do with setting some parameters for how bad the work and its intention need to be to qualify: viz., where does bad art end and 'pornography' begin? Perhaps it takes the modern mind and advanced moral philosophy to separate them, but at the end of the day it can still only be done subjectively, based on the judgements of a particular society on what is immoral. At a more practical level, the farther back you go, the less of everything survives, and it's likely that generations of people separating the wheat from the chaff have tended to destroy the pornography of the past, meaning that we lack most of the information the question requires. So perhaps it's one of those which looks as if it ought to have an answer but in fact doesn't. (Anyway, you may be too harsh on troglodytes, 202.168.50.40.) Xn4 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the bonobo could be of some interest to you — porn as simian diplomacy. --24.147.86.187 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, the depiction of sexual activities is very, very old. I'd probably venture to say it is a universal of any culture with any sort of complex representational abilities. It is often the first thing done with new representational mediums ("Hey, a pencil! Let's draw boobies! Hey, a camera! Let's photograph boobies! Hey, a moving picture! Let's film boobies! Hey, a computer network! Let's distribute films of boobies!"). --24.147.86.187 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Boobies? DuncanHill 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please turn to the next page, milud. Xn4 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pornography may not be so very, very old, because a good deal of what seems to us to be pornographic was hieratic. There was temple prostitution in the Assyrian societies and throughout the ancient world.  The phallic processions and overly "fertile" female depictions, the "holy" copulation of the king with a priestess, etc., all demonstrate that a certain explicit sexual depiction was at least tinged with religion.  To get to pornography, you have to have lust-only graphic depictions of sexuality, primarily designed to be useful rather than anything else (useful in producing sexual arousal), so that may be hard to demonstrate clearly before the Romans.  It was probably going on everywhere all the time, but it's hard to document before them.  (Yes, there are Egyptian carvings that show the overseer being penetrated by another man, but one would be inclined to see that as satire and graphic revenge rather than pornography designed to titillate any party.)  Utgard Loki 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's old, it's not pornography, it's a "fertility cult" or "fertility idol" or some such. Nowadays Big Religion keeps the competitors down by calling it pornography and making you stand in the corner. Gzuckier 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I simply cannot resist adding a comment I read a year or so ago in the letters page of the Sunday Times, published in London. It was in response to an article in the previous week's edition about some ancient Babylonian texts uncovered by archaeologists. One line they could make nothing of read in translation 'He put a hot fish in her navel.' The letter writer's response was, "It is time that some in the archaeological profession learned to be a little less literal minded.  He put a hot fish in her navel, did he?  Ho, Ho, Ho." Clio the Muse 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho ho. In any case, it's probably anachronistic to apply our modern concepts of pornography to the works of previous ages.   Even if drawings etc were primarily designed to produce sexual arousal or titillation, that fact alone did not necessarily have the negative connotation we tend to place on it these days.  What defines "pornography", as distinct from artistic endeavour or mere graphic representation of natural functions, varies tremendously from culture to culture and from age to age.  --  JackofOz 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not know what the creators or viewers of it thought of it, if it was an object of reverence or merely porn, but consider the Venus of Willendorf, created from 24,000 to 26,000 years ago. It had been imported to the area (non-native stone) and decorated with red pigment. See also Venus of Dolní Věstonice from 27,000 to 31,000 years ago, and the other Venus figurines. Edison 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that no-one has yet linked to history of erotic depictions; it is a featured article, after all! Laïka  18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Slander/ defamation of character
if a person or group of people in an organisation make allegations towards another that are untrue, and the head of this organisation takes their word and outcasts the individual without evidence or allows the individual to express their story, could this be considered slander?

or quite simply, is there a law that protects individuals from being unfairly treated in clubs/ societies, and can prevent/ compensate unfair dismissal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.199.130 (talk) 04:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points: 1) We on Wikipedia are not permitted to provide legal advice. 2) Laws vary widely around the world. (Your IP address indicates you are in Scotland). Edison 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * [Disclaimer: I'm answering your question academically: if there's a real person concerned, good legal advice is needed from a specialist lawyer on the spot]. Could this be "considered slander"? Perhaps, depending on where it is. In the UK England, the threshold for defamation is higher for slander than for libel, but it (slander) includes damage caused to someone in the way of his or her office. In the case you describe, the defamation would generally be a side issue, unless the relevant framework (it might be the country's employment law or the organisation's own constitution) gave no redress to the person cast out. Frankly, all organizations have constant gossip running around them, a lot of which is slanderous: the crunch issue in this case is not really the possible slander, it's the behaviour of the 'head of the organization', who has had no regard to the rules of natural justice. Xn4 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Slander and libel do not exist in Scots Law. There is simply defamation. For actaul legal advice, the Citizens Advice Bureau legal advice website is a good place to start. Lurker  (said · done) 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to trace Hamilton heritage between American and Scotland/Ireland/England
Hi,

I am searching for a person who is extremely knowledgeable about the Hamilton genealogy. Want to retain this person to help me track my family history. Can you suggest someone or give me several candidates that I can contact. Would be much appreciated.

Larry A. Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryHamilton (talk • contribs) 04:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to find just one person to help you, then you need to decide which of the countries you mention is the focus of the work you want to get done. There are a lot of genealogists in the world. In the UK, there are professional bodies you could contact for advice, such as AGRA. Xn4 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You might also want to find scholarly-written biographies of Alexander Hamilton that detail his family. See what sources the biographer used to document the family members; it's quite likely that the biographer has drawn upon a genealogist.  Of course, that assumes that you're from the same Hamilton branch as him.  --M @ r ē ino 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dire Straits Song
So, I've been thinking of this one song for a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out who it's by or what it's name is...I would venture a guess it was on the same cassette as Dire Strait's take on the song "The Bug" (sometimes you're the windshield...), but I'm not sure if it's even by them. It was a sort of 12/8 shuffle feel, and the only lyrics I recall were about walking a girl up to the door, delivered in a Yes-style male harmony, and then the isolated lyric "He farts." Anyone have any ideas? It's driving me batty. 72.219.143.150 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be an excellent question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the Entertainment desk has nothing about music listed, while this desk does...that's why I asked here. I agree, though, it might get more answers there. I'll ask over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.143.150 (talk) 19:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the Dire Straits album with "The Bug" on it.  Might be a misheard lyric. --M @ r ē ino 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Who called the shots?
I'm trying to create a chronological list of the leaders of Spain throughout the 19th century but I'm having a problem understanding who actually held the power. Of course, today the Prime Minister is in charge while the king is the figure head. Was this true in the 19th century and, whether or not, was there a change at any point in that century? Here are some relevant links: Prime Minister of Spain and List of Spanish monarchs. It seems that through the early part of the century the equivalent to a prime minister was the first secretary of state which might indicate a lower status but I don't know for sure. - Pyro19 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than a temporary blip during the Spanish Civil War of 1820-1823, I believe that the king held real power up until the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. And, if the pattern holds, this situation should continue until the Spanish Civil War of 2052-2055. :-) StuRat 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Pyro, let's put the matter under some consideration. First, by way of comparison, you might care to have a look at the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. For the whole of the nineteenth century, and not counting more than one term in office, there were nineteen in all. Now compare that with the Spanish list! Yes, I know, the political processes were different, but the essential point remains that Spanish politics were notoriously unstable over virtually the whole course of the century; torn between liberalism and reaction; constitutional rule and military dictatorship; construction and chaos. There were also several dynastic wars, which complicated the picture still further. I realise this all takes you well away from the point of your question; I would just ask you to hold in mind that what follows is, for practical reasons, a simple re-sketching of a highly complex mosaic.

Strictly speaking Ferdinand VII was the last monarch to rule in the old absolutist style, at least when he was able. The real change in Spanish constitutional politics comes during the reign of his daughter, Isabella II, who was only three years old when she came to the throne in 1833. Power in the first period of regency was held by the traditionally minded queen-mother, Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies. On her downfall in 1840 she was replaced by Baldomero Espartero, Prince of Vergara, closely associted with the liberal wing of Spanish politics. It was during his period that the liberal Constitution of 1837 took definite shape, replacing the age-old forms of royal absolutism. In a sense Espartero, soldier and politician, a kind of 'liberal dictator', was the first modern Spanish Caudillo, or 'strong man', a feature that was to appear time and again.

Espartero was overthrown in a coup in 1843, the leaders of which declared that the thirteen-year-old Isabella had come of age. Isabella was to 'rule' until 1868, during which time Spain descended deeper and deeper into political chaos. Isabella tended to favour the more reactionary elements, which made her widely unpopular across the country, leading to the Revolution of 1868. The Queen went into permanent exile, leaving the throne vacant for a period of two years. Revolution, chaos and anarchy followed, one hard upon the other, until 1870 when the Cortes offered the crown to Amadeo of Savoy, an Italian prince, who agreed to abide by the liberal constitution; but he was immediately drawn into the impossible morass of Spanish politics. His main backer, Juan Prim, yet another caudillo, was assassinated soon after Amadeo's appointment. Amadeo himself only lasted until 1873, when he left the country, declaring Spain to be ungovernable. The First Spanish Republic was then declared, which was to last for a year, under siege by its political enemies from all sides.

On the fall of the republic the Bourbons returned in the shape of Alfonso XII, Isabella's son. Alfonso largely slipped into the political background, leaving government to a variety of prime ministers, the most noteable of whom were Práxedes Mateo Sagasta and Antonio Cánovas del Castillo. Overall the period of Alfonso XII was one of reasonable stability, which ended with his death in 1885. His successor, Alfonso XIII, was born posthumously, which meant another long minority.

This goes beyond the tems of your question, but Alfonso was later to give his support to Miguel Primo de Rivera, the first modern Spanish dictator. Deeply compromised by this partnership, Alfonso was forced into exile in 1931, after Primo de Rivera's death, which led to the creation of the Second Spanish Republic, which was to last until 1939, destroyed in the Spanish Civil War. Clio the Muse 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf-a reading
Help, please! I'm reading Mein Kampf as part of a forthcoming course on political theory, and quite honestly I'm finding it really hard going. I need to understand the main background and themes. Your page on the book covers some of the themes identified in my course work, though not all. Could one of you please walk me very slowly through the labyrinth? Thanks ever so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallow the Amazon (talk • contribs) 11:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're finding it such a struggle... ;-) --24.147.86.187 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The tireless editors here at Wikipedia have struggled many days and nights, just for you, and have produced an article on just about every topic. All that they ask is that you type what you are looking for, such as Mein Kampf, in the Search box and click "Go".  Then, you could, for example, read about the contents and topics of the book. -- Kainaw (what?) 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, he did say he has looked at our page. So tone down the condescension please.  Secondly, to the Original Poster:  We don’t do your homework for you, but if you have looked at the article on Mein Kampf and still have some questions about it, you need to be more specific about which themes you still do not understand.--Czmtzc 12:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I was writing in the style of Mein Kampf.  I assumed that a person who is currently struggling with reading the book would get it. -- Kainaw (what?) 12:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry too. I get it now, but you kind of have to admit that when one writes in the style of Hitler, they do sound like a condecending blowhard. --Czmtzc 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Heehee! I agree. It would be difficult to write like Hitler and not sound like a condescending blowhard... "Administrators, editors of the great Wikipedia!  Another year of anonymous edits is drawing to an end.  A year of great decisions lies ahead..."  Yep - condescending. -- Kainaw (what?) 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's partly autobiography and partly Hitler's manifesto. I was surprised to find it so boring, I was expecting terrifying delusions of a mad-man, but it's largely just a record of various jobs he held, etc. StuRat 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Our articles Völkisch movement and Master race might help you to make sense of Hitler's twisted ramblings. Marco polo 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another useful article is Dolchstosslegende. Marco polo 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If its the ideas that are confusing you, Nazism and race (and the respective other articles under the title "Nazi ideology" on the template on that page) may help.martianlostinspace email me 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a look at Adolf Hitler - specifically his life before writing the book - that should give you a good idea of the background to the book.87.102.90.8 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Remember that the book only really gives insight into his life before writing it, as well as the various bees in his bonnet - It shouldn't be used as a bible with which to interpret the entire course of the third reich (though perhaps it does represent just that) - no doubt it often is taken as a primary source for analysing Hitler. (It does look like Hitler had no change of heart after writing it though - perhaps it could be described as an honest work)87.102.90.8 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will say this much, 87.102; Mein Kampf is conceivably one of the most honest political manifestos ever written, so much so that after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 he was discomforted enough to claim initially, when his regime was still militarily weak, that it represented "merely a fantasy written behind bars." But in the course of his political life he was to work towards all of the goals set out in the book, from racial policy to the quest  for Lebensraum.  His final testement in 1945 did little more that rehash some of the central themes of Mein Kampf.


 * So, questioner, you are looking for a thread through the labyrinth? Well, read it, first of all, as a form of political biography, which has a tendency to spill over at points into outright pathology.  The Weltanschauung Hitler develops during his time in Vienna in particular is crucial in understanding his later political actions.  At the most basic level it is a crude mixture of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and popular science; ideas half-digested and badly understood.  It is in Vienna, moreover, where Hitler becomes both a committed German nationalist and an anti-semite, drawing his ideas from the racist pamphlets freely available at the time.


 * Moving beyond the autobiographical element, the main themes to look for are hostility to the Treaty of Versailles, hostility to the Weimar Republic, and hostility to Communism. These are all united by his overriding hostility to the Jews, who threaten Germany from all angles, either as Marxists or as plutocrats.  Germany, he believes, has to strive for a super popwer status, by breaking the bonds of Versailles, and surging eastwards at the expense of the Slavs.  Democracy he regards with disdain; for "...as practiced in Western Europe today, it is the forerunner of Marxism."  He has little respect for ordinary voters, even the people who later would help carry him to poweer, describing them as 'stupid' or as 'cattle'.


 * The theme of anti-Communism is also one of considerable importance, again unting his hatred of left-wing ideologies and the Jews. Russia was not only the seat of Commmunism, but it was also dominated by the Jews who were aiming at the destruction of Germany.  It was also, by fortunate coincidence, the area that was to provide the chief outlet for German expansionism-"When we speak of new territory in Europe today we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her...The struggle against the Jewish Bolshevization of the world demands that we should declare our position towards Soviet Russia."


 * You should also read the passages on propaganda with some care; because it is here that the book is often at its most informative and revealing, a useful guide to the effective techniques adopted by the Nazi Party. For example, he writes "We chose red for our posters, our intention being to irritate the left so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings."  He is particularly good in his descriptions of politics and mass mobilisation as a form of collective drama, and the need for simplicity and again simplicity.  And if you intend to tell a lie make sure its a big one, to be repeated continuously until it becomes the truth and truth the lie.


 * But in the end I do have to say to you there is really no shortcut to your own reading and your own understanding. Clio the Muse 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a documentary in which a contemporary of Martin Bormann told how Bormann's son amazed his father (after years of immersion in propaganda/indoctrination) by asking him, "What is National Socialism?" Bormann replied (after regaining his composure), "National Socialism is whatever the Fuhrer says it is." I think that's a very informative principle to draw upon when dealing with this whole epoch.Retarius | Talk 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the question was about 'mein kampf'.83.100.249.228 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jane Eyre (2006 TV serial) Soundtrack listing
Hi, I'm trying to find a listing for the above miniseries from the BBC. There are soundtracks for the three or so of the other film versions, as well as the musical and operas, but I cannot for the life of me find a listing for this particular adaptation. Any help? Many thanks. Zidel333 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the one with Ruth Wilson as Jane. I couldn't find a soundtrack, but there's a DVD which you can take a look at here. Xn4 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I definitely ordered the DVD from Amazon, but the end credits do not list any info regarding the music. Zidel333 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Radio dramas
What is the single best-known and greatest(General supremacy ,actually most people can communicate with ,a perfect style ,powerful inteligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics, and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.)episodes of radio dramas of all time?(for example I know Orson Welles-directed adaptation of The War of the Worlds)Flakture 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are including real-life drama, but the crash of the Hindenburg was covered on newsreel and played on radio later: "Oh, the humanity !". There were also some rather dramatic speeches given over the radio, such as FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and Churchill's "we shall fight on the beaches...". StuRat 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of opinion. You might think different things to what I might.  I suppose it depends on country as well. Can you tell us where you are?martianlostinspace email me 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "greatest", anyway, if not "best known".martianlostinspace email me 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The main idea is a general supremacy. its great because most people can communicate with, a perfect style ,powerful inteligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics,and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.Flakture 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Politics Question
If the United States Senate passed a law to re-organize the government from a democracy into an empire, would that be taken seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 15:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * It would require numerous Constitutional Amendments, each of which require 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote to support them. If Congress just passed a simple law, then, no, it would be immediately overturned by the US Supreme Court and probably ignored until that happened.  The Senate alone can't pass laws, but could pass a resolution, which has no force of law, and would also be ignored. StuRat 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, I wonder what you mean by an empire, which I've never heard used to describe a specific type of government, but rather one possible outcome or goal of a government.  j e f f j o n  15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution requires that the federal government guarantee a republican form of government. Overturning that would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would require approval of the states.  Corvus cornix 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The constitutional amendments would require not only a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress but also approval by three fourths (38) of the states. Furthermore, empire is not necessarily inconsistent with formal democracy or republicanism.  The United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands maintained empires while following democratic forms of government at home during the 19th and early 20th centuries.  France was a republic during that time.  The United States became something of an empire after the Spanish American War when it conquered most of Spain's overseas possessions.  Arguably, the present-day U.S. maintenance of military bases and deployment of forces on nearly every continent and its dominance of international finance mean that it is a kind of empire today.  Marco polo 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Article Four commands Congress to guarantee republican government to the several States; I read this as forbidding any State to become other than a republic, rather than forbidding any amendment of the FedGov into something else. (Logically I don't see why a monarchy can't have republics as provinces, or vice versa.)  &mdash;Tamfang 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A much more likely scenario would be a (hopefully temporary) power-grab by the Executive Branch in the wake of a serious attack on the US. General Tommy Franks has publicly fretted over such an outcome.  See also Continuity of Operations Plan.  --Sean 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Along the lines of that last link, I wonder how many non-sovereign entities have constitutional provisions for what to do if their parent state were to stop functioning. In some places, even considering the possibility could be seen as treason.  &mdash;Tamfang 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If "empire" simply means the possession of colonies (which I will call a country subject to the government of another country, but not represented in their government), then could you say Territories of the USA comprise a form of colony? There is nothing in the Constitution permitting, for example, Guam to send electors to a Presidential election, and the delegates which are sent to Congress do not mean the full representation which the Constitution grants to States. I suppose in theory, a major foreign country could be annexed by law, yet not granted representation in government.martianlostinspace email me 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) There is also an article on "American Empire". In any case, a law passed by the Senate would be ignored until the assent of the House of Representatives and the President, unless of course, there was a veto override.martianlostinspace email me 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be of some interest for people to note that the Roman Empire, as political institution, 'evolved', so to speak, over a lengthy period of time. The early emperors, from Augustus onwards, maintained the outward forms of the old Roman Republic.  It was not really until the time of Diocletian that all pretence was dropped in favour of new forms of political absolutism.  As for the United States, there were very real fears in the nineteenth that the Presidency was developing into a 'monarchy'.  Andrew Jackson, in particular, was often draped in royal robes by hostile political cartoonists.  As for the future, Buzz Windrip waits in the wings!  Clio the Muse 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sean that the most likely scenario for an end to democratic forms in the United States would be for the president, in his constitutional role as commander in chief, to declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and be confirmed in these actions by an authoritarian Supreme Court. (May such a thing never come to pass.)  Marco polo 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the constitutional technicalities, which have been intelligently discussed above, if a majority can be achieved for any measure in the US Senate, that has to be "taken seriously".
 * On the suggestion in your question that empires aren't democratic, I can't help remembering this thought of George Orwell's - "It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning." Marco polo has pointed out above a few facts about recent empires. He doesn't mention the world's only surviving empire, Japan, which strikes me as pretty democratic (largely, of course, due to the reforms agreed between the Japanese and the US after the Second World War). Clio the Muse reminds us of how the Romans saw Imperium. In that light, it must be arguable that the government of the US is already more imperial than that of Japan! Xn4 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of law, to "suspend the Constitution" is to abolish the Union, since the Constitution is what gives the Federal Government permission to exist and function. If the President continues to exercise power after such an act, it's a coup d'état, not a constitutional transition.  &mdash;Tamfang 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already happened... and we have a featured article on The Emperor of the United States. --Dweller 10:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To follow from Marco Polo's scenario, that would also result in an Emperor in the form of the President. Imperial Presidency sound familiar? Though, I don't think he would be able to suspend the Constitution - wouldn't the Supreme Court be more likely to strike that down? Certainly, he constitutionally has the right to suspend Habeas Corpus. And the judiciary generally does permit the President to erode freedom to a certain extent under wartime.martianlostinspace email me 10:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Civil service illustration
The illustration of the Virgin Mary registering is linked as being during the Byzantine Empire, but that empire didn't arise until hundreds of years later, I believe. So, is that illustration mislabeled ? StuRat 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Byzantine Empire was around way before the 11th century and into, what, the 15th? This label seems accurate to me.  Beekone 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the Virgin Mary long dead by then ? Or is this supposed to be her spirit, not the actual woman ? StuRat 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Appears mislabeled to me. While the mosaic dates to the Byzantine, identifying Quirinius suggests to me that it's a full-out depiction of the Roman administration, not a symbolic transportation of Mary to the Byzantine administration. &mdash; Lomn 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm brain dead this morning. That label is way off.  While the Byzantine empire was a product of Rome's dissolution, it's certainly not synonymous with the Romans.  Good eye, StuRat.  Beekone 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob, I'll go make the fix while you have your morning coffee. :-) StuRat 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the fix, but we now have the complication that the Roman Empire is listed as lasting from 44 BC – 1453 AD, meaning they consider the Byzantine Empire to be a mere subset, not a separate empire. I guess I'll avoid getting involved in that can of worms, though. StuRat 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Music in Youtube video
What is the music in this video? I searched but could not find the right composer for the piece. Mozart? --Blue387 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The theme is La Folia, but I don't know which version. It sounds like the soundtrack from Barry Lyndon.
 * Handel's sarabande from Keyboard suite Vol.2, No.4 in D minor HWV 437. (Not La folia but very similar.) Skarioffszky 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This piece, identified by Karioffszky, was in Barry Lyndon. I was able to call up a quick score by searching this limited preview for the word "courante" and choosing p. 39, then for the string "____" and choosing p. 40.  Wareh 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Business
What is the difference between Economics studies and Business studies. For me they both deal with money and income. But what subjects and concepts each one deals with? Thank you. CG 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Business is studying how to make money. Economics is studying how other people make money. -- Миборовский 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice answer; it made me laugh. Bielle 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, Economics is theoretical, talking about history, modelling of flows of money, mathematics and statistics. It can talk about the economies of nations and continents. Business Studies is more practical and applied to running a business, with a bit of Economics, plus some Law, Management, Marketing and other ideas. Nobody ever referred to Business Studies as a "dismal science". SaundersW 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cobweb Theory
Kindly explain your understanding of Cobweb theory in relations to stable and unstable cobweb. Thanks. Oli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.125.50 (talk) 16:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * .--Shantavira|feed me 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad checks
First there was stop payment and then insufficient funds. Now a new technique is being used to deny the recipient payment by means of check. The issuer simply makes a change and then fails to initial it. Banks refuse to print warnings on the check so where can someone find a list of things to be careful of when accepting payment by check?  Clem  17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct date (not postdated)
 * Words and figures agree
 * Correct signature
 * Initials next to a correction are not sufficient for my bank. They require a full signature. Of course, this still won't guarantee funds. For that you need their check card guarantee number written on the back of the check. If you can get them to add their name and address, su much the better.--Shantavira|feed me 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely this has always been the case? I would be shocked if banks had been moving money between accounts when an unsigned change was clear in a cheque. £ 500 1600 paid to my mum Bob Joseph? Certainly... Skittle 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"outed" politicians
In the last year or so I seem to remember two different politicians at the local level who were "outed" (allegedely revealed to be homosexual). One of them was chatting to young men on gay.com and promised some of them jobs at his office. I also think there was a different local politician who was outed but then later publicly embraced his homsexuality. I cannot seem to rememeber the names of these two local (i think) politicians. I am not thinking of Larry Craig or Mark Foley. Can someone remind me of the names I am looking for? Thanks. -- Diletante 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed Schrock? -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Much thanks but thats not one of the guys I am thinking of, IIRC there was solid proof in both of these cases brought by mainstream media. -- Diletante 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What "local level" are you talking about? Do you mean local politicians anywhere in the United States, or just in the city that you live in?  --M @ r ē ino 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I mean local as in the municipal level in the United States, but not any particular locality, I think these were both mayors of major cities. -- Diletante

OK, i found one James E. West (politician), I still think there is a very similar politician who has now embraced his homosexuality that I can't remember. -- Diletante 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a mayor, and still probably not who you're thinking of, but the chairman of the Richmond, VA School Board was discovered on Manhunt.net by a Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter. He never really denied his homosexuality. One thing's for sure, there seems to be no shortage of gay politicians, closeted or otherwise. -- LarryMac | Talk  17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking through List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people I now realize that this is true. I have found several gay mayors and other politicians. I realize how broad my question is, I am not sure if I can clarify well enough except to say that this "outing" happened in the past few years and involved a "secret life", and I know that is still to broad. -- Diletante 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Americablog specializes in Schadenfreude over outed Republicans with a history of supporting anti-gay legislation, so if your goal is to compile the names of many such, you may find it useful. Wareh 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be lying if I said I wasn't engaging in a little schadenfreude. I believe that some of the most vociferous anti-gay sentiment s are result of psychological projection. Thanks for the link. -- Diletante 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey. I imagine it happens all the time at the local level, with little national news coverage.  The mind really boggles at some of the Roy Cohn-types who actively oppose gay rights while themselves in the closet.  --Sean 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that was who I was thinking of. Thanks! I think we can consider this question fully answered. -- Diletante 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Guerrillas
Another Spanish question for you, girls and guys. Just how effective were the guerrillas in helping defeat the French during the Peninsular War? Admiratio 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one way to consider things is to look at the way the French deployed their armies in Spain. In the spring of 1813 - because that's when I could find numbers for - there were two armies watching Allied forces in Portugal and southern Spain, Reille's in the north with 35-40,000 men, and Gazan's in the south, about the same size. The presence of the remaining armies was at least partly linked to the guerilla problem. These other forces were Clausel's army, which had around 40,000 men watching the roads back to France in the north-west of Spain, Suchet's army in Catalonia and the north-east with over 60,000 men, and Drouet d'Erlon's force of around 15,000 men in Madrid and central Spain. That's an awful lot of soldiers to guard supply lines and garrison places, so the guerillas probably tied down tens of thousands of soldiers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that, while the guerrillas performed some valuable functions, there is a long-established tendency among historians to perceive them as the only effective form of Spanish resistence to the French. They were not. More than that, they often caused more trouble than they were worth. Here is an account by a soldier in the regular Spanish army (yes, there was one) of the actions of the guerrillas during the siege of Zaragossa;

''The guerrillas who go by the name of 'patriots' should be exterminated: they are gangs of thieves with carte blanche to rob on the roads and in the villages. If some of them have brought benefits, the damage that others have wrought is a thousand times greater...Those who believe these bands...to be useful are many, but if they meditate on the desertion from the enemy that has not occured through fear of being murdered...the burnings and other disasters suffered by the villages...the many highwaymen and bandits who carry out their crimes under this pretext, and finally the manner in which their disorder and their independence has caused all kinds of evil, they will understand how far the disadvantages outweigh the benefits''.

The overestimation of the guerrillas, and the underestimation of the regular army, has its source in the politics of the day; for the Spanish liberals were always stressing the importance of the 'popular' rising, even when the popularity was little better than robbery and murder. The guerrillas were a useful way initially of rousing the people against the occupier; but in the end the Spanish authorities were at pains to bring them under proper military discipline. It is almost certain that the French would have been able to suppress the unruly irregular forces with ease, if they had not also faced Anglo-Portuguese and Spanish armies. Clio the Muse 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

for Clios point about the regular Spanish Army see Battle of Bailén, as an example.--Tresckow 09:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tresckow! Clio the Muse 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Peace
I've just read "Fighting for Peace" by Henry Van Dyke In it, he states that the US promised a statue representing "Peace through Justice" to be given to the "Palace of Peace" and it was supposed to have been placed on the central landing of the great "Stairway of Honor" I have not been able to find out if it is there or was ever given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.78.77 (talk) 18:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's right there: Image:Peacepalaceinside.jpg. This source confirms it is the Peace through Justice statue. --Lambiam 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another anthropology question
I helf-remember reading, a long time ago, about a society that once existed with a peculiar family structure. Siblings lived together, chose whatever sexual partners they wanted, and the children would be brought up by the mother and her siblings and inherit from the mother's brothers (men being the ones who had property and status), so men brought up their sisters' children, not their own. I think it was in pre-British India somewhere. Did I imagine it, or did it really exist, and if so, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknack009 (talk • contribs) 19:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgot to sign, sorry! --Nicknack009 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds somewhat like the common kinship and descent system that existed among Native Americans. Generally speaking one had to marry outside one's clan, and the children became part of the mother's clan. Often one's mother's brother took more of a father role. This is a kind of matrilineality, but perhaps Native American societies are not what you are thinking about -- if nothing else, property and status were not held by men only. But the basic idea of a system in which children are raised by their mother and her siblings is not all that unusual. Pfly 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Marx and Engels describe something like this in one of their works on the family. I don't remember the specifics, but family structures like this were apparently not uncommon in early societies. Donald Hosek 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in one of my books on the Blackfeet is a description of the Kainah practice of children being raised with their grandmother as the mother-figure and their uncles as a join father-figure. Their biological mother/father were not directly involved in raising them.  This was described in detail in one chapter and then debunked in the next as an option when the mother died or married out (usually traded) to a distant tribe - which is pretty much what Pfly stated.  If absolutely necessary, I can try to find time to dig out the books from the back of my closet and see which one it was. -- Kainaw (what?) 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any such generalization about the hundreds if not thousands of "Native American" societies is almost certainly wrong. &mdash;Tamfang 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The classic anthropological case of this (cited in many textbooks) are the Nayars of Kerala.... AnonMoos 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a term for paying off loans with new loans?
When someone takes out a loan to pay off an older loan, and keeps paying off loans with new loans, what is the term for that? Also, is there an article on it? Can someone wikilink it, please? --70.179.175.240 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Debt consolidation is about paying off old loans with a new loan. DuncanHill 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's when you transfer all your existing loans into one other loan, and pay it off.  I think the questioner is asking about an ongoing series of loans, each one paying off the former one, never reaching the end ...  --  JackofOz 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob Peter to pay Paul? --24.147.86.187 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Check kiting?? - Eron Talk 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so. That is illegal.  The question appear to be along the lines of: You buy a house with a loan.  You then refinance with a different company to get a new loan (which pays off the original loan).  You refinance again with another company, paying off the previous loan.  You refinance again, paying off the previous loan.  I don't know of a name for doing this over and over and over. -- Kainaw (what?) 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that this is possible as the new lender will want to know what outstanding debts he/she has.--88.110.215.190 08:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the general term is refinancing. The new lender is unlikely to turn down a refinancing opportunity, as long as the borrower has a good credit history - if the borrower has been meeting their payments to the old lender, there is no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so to the new lender. The old lender might offer better terms to persuade the borrower to refinance with themselves rather than go to a new lender. Lenders sometimes try to protect themselves against refinancing by attaching penalties for early repayment - there might be an "administrative charge", for example. It is always a good idea to check what early repayment might cost, and make sure that the savings made by refinancing cover this cost. Gandalf61 08:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been common practice in recent years to do this to make payments on a mortgage that one can't actually afford. A series of cash-out refinancings against increasing equity in a home. I would offer the term autoponzification as a possible description of the practice. Donald Hosek 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as a debtor maintains a reasonably good credit rating, by having an income and by making payments on time, credit card companies in the U.S. have tended to offer new credit cards on attractive terms, such as 0% or very low interest for some introductory period. In the best case, it might be 3% interest until the refinanced debt is paid off, or 0% for a year. It may be possible, if not advisable, to refinance consumer debt which is at 14% on a credit card, down to these lower rates, greatly reducing the amount of monthly finance charges. Of course if outgo exceeds income, the amount of consumer (unsecured) debt will continue to increase each month, until the debtor is unable to or accidentally fails to make the minimum payment on time some month, or until the limit on a credit card is exceeded, in which case the whole autoponzificated (thanks to User:Donald Hosek) house of cards collapses. Then the credit card company pronounces the debtor to be in default and raises the rate from 0% or 3% to as much as 30% (without explicitly notifying the debtor), as they perhaps expected to do in the first place when they dropped the baited hook in front of the consumer fish. Then the debtor has little choice but to take such extreme measures as decreasing their level of consumption by cancelling high speed internet (horrors!), taking out a loan against the equity in the home, possibly leading to the eventual loss of the home, or going out and getting a job, thereby decreasing the time which can be spent editing Wikipedia (horrors!). Edison 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Corvus cornix 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)