Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 19

= March 19 =

Lutheran Hymns
What were three or four of the most popular Lutheran hymns in the 1760s? AllenHansen (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These two websites The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941 and The Lutheran Hymnal Online offer versions of the Lutheran hymn book that include the dates the hymns were written. That doesn't tell you which were most popular, but you could at least start making a list of period-correct ones. WikiJedits (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, hang on, try this one instead: Lutheran Hymnody. It seems "hymnody" is the correct search term. WikiJedits (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe I should rephrase my question. What were some of the most widely sung Lutheran hymns, in German, in the mid-1700s, especially the 1760s. A lot of the hymns in the 1941 Hymnal were obviously not sung by them at the time. AllenHansen (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me take a stab at this ... The second half of the 18th century was a time of great simplification in German, specifically Lutheran, church music, due to the combined effects of the Enlightenment and the stile galant, somewhat as a reaction to perceived excesses of opulence in the preceding period. Extravagant music, such as the cantatas, oratorios, and Passions of J.S. Bach, of  was pretty much a thing of the past, -- for a while.  The same hymns were often sung as in the first half of the century -- Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, Christ lag in Todesbanden, Vater unser im Himmelreich -- but not necessarily with the same settings.  Worship services consisted of hymns, readings, prayers, and preaching, with a much diminished importance of music for its own sake.  Many, if not most, of the chorales you can find in the 371 Four-Part Chorales of J.S. Bach were still sung, though according to the article in the New Grove, some of the settings were recomposed in accordance with the taste for lighter styles.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: a good way to research this would be to take the list of hymns in the 371 by Bach, and then look through one of those Lutheran hymnals for post-Bach harmonizations of the same hymns -- specifically if you can find some dated to the 1750s and 1760s (most good hymnals give the source for the tune, as well as the composer and date of the harmonization).  You may find the voice-leading and harmonies somewhat simplified from the versions by Bach. Antandrus  (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much! 192.117.101.209 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

farm animal as pet animal B.C. Canada
I remember there was a news in Canada where in British Columbia where woman has a dwarf horse, which is a farm animal and she wants it as a pet but people and mayor of the town, which I didn't get the name, said it is not right to do that and they bring this matter into the court. Where I can find this news report? I ask this because I think it could change the law of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1a0bca94-57f0-49e4-9fa5-4f3edff82305? --Bowlhover (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

History assigment-help please
"The political crisis that overtook Scotland and then Britain in the period from 1637 to 1640 was not about Prayer Books; it was not about Bishops; it was about Power". It's a history assignment I have to do over the easter break. I am not asking for an answer. I'm just asking for some clues and some guidance. I know about the Prayer Book crisis and I know about the Bishops Wars. I'm just not sure how to put this information together to get the kind of answer looked for in the question. Help!Donald Paterson (talk)


 * Well, any political crisis is about power. The question itself is poorly crafted, it's basicaly telling you to come up with the answer they want to hear. Anyway, the Bishop's War was about Bishops, because secular and ecclesiastical power were intertwined. People had to attend church, christenings, marriages and deaths were recorded, invaluable information in pre-census days, so to change the hierarchy to a peer-based system, would hurt the King's authority. The actual church doctrine wasn't as important as who they answered to.

The prayer books, to put it simply, were how God heard the people. Charles was imposing his way on someone with a different set of beliefs. Basicaly, the conflicts were about who the church's power went to. I hope someone more knowledgable will chime in. AllenHansen (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Donald, yes, it was about power, understood in a number of senses: the loss of power by large sections of the Scottish aristocracy following the Union of the Crowns in 1603; the acquisition of power by the Scottish episcopacy as agents of the crown; the misuse and abuse of prerogative power by a distant king.  You should have a look at the page on the Covenanters, which covers these points in some detail.


 * In your position I would begin by looking briefly at the rule of James VI in Scotland, particularly in relation to the question of church government. The separation of the aristocracy from the more radical elements in the Presbyterian party had been one of James' political successes, enabling him to build a new national church in the north on an Episcopalian basis.  When in London James, secure in his power and his peace, was famously to say that he was able govern Scotland 'by pen.'  But this form of government was always fragile.  It depended on James' understanding of the complexities of Scottish politics; it depended on his familiarity with the leading personalities of the realm; it depended, above all, on his ability to ensure that the nobility had access to office and position.  But, in the end, there was only a limited amount of this to give.


 * Charles' reign started badly in the north. He alienated the nobility by an Act of Revocation, which threatened to claw back all former clerical lands that had been secularised since the Reformation.  He did little to win over the Scottish nobility thereafter, preferring to restrict his counsels to a small and Anglicised group of favourites; people like James, Marquess of Hamilton.  Scotland was thus left with a large group of suspicious and underemployed aristocrats.  It was bad enough that most of these people had little or no access to the king, far removed in London; what made matters far worse was that, from the mid 1630s, Charles began to fill vacancies in the Scottish Privy Council from the panel of bishops, including the post of Chancellor, the most powerful of all.  Jealous of the growing power and influence of their Episcopalian colleagues, the nobility only needed a cause to give their immediate and long-term resentments a precise direction.  It came in 1637, when Charles insisted on the adoption of a new Anglican-style Prayer Book without taking any soundings at all from the aristocracy.


 * For the Presbyterian dissidents in an Episcopal Church opposition to the Prayer Book was an ideal cause around which to unite. But it may have come to nothing but from the support they obtained from the nobility: men like James Graham, Earl of Montrose and subsequently Archibald Campbell, Lord Lorne.  A new and dangerous political alliance had been created, destroying all the work of James VI.  The Presbyterians were able to challenge the power of the Bishops in the Church, just as the Nobility was able to challenge the power of the Bishops in the state.  Scottish government was, in effect, completely removed from the crown, as both the Presbyterians and the Nobility went on to challenge the power of the King himself in the Bishops' Wars.


 * Charles was on a downward spiral. Unable to control events in Scotland he also lost control of events in England.  In the end he lost his head, in more ways than one.  The best of luck with your assignment.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both. I knew you would not let me down, Clio. Donald Paterson (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Purchasing power of US dollar circa 1900
What was the purchasing power of a dollar in 1900 expressed in terms of a dollar today? F Chiles (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow the top links here... WikiJedits (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus: $25.47 in the year 2007 had the same purchasing power as $1.00 in the year 1900. Conversely, $0.04 in the year 1900 had the same purchasing power as $1.00 in the year 2007.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There are lots of ways of calculating historical currency rates—it's a case of what indicator you choose to use, and which one you choose to use (ideally) has to do with what you are thinking of purchasing with that dollar. If you're talking about the price of food or rent, the CPI is a good one to go with; if you're comparing government funding of science, the relative share of the GDP makes more sense, etc. Ideally your indicator will be most like the proposed purchasing that you are considering. Additionally, some of the indicators change more over time; food might be less of an expense today (or more of one, I don't know) than it was before, due to improvements in technology, expectations, availability, etc.
 * I've found this site the best overall conversion site, as it does all of the various types for you and let's you see how much variance there is. Note that you can't reliably do it for 2008, because to calculate these things you need values that won't be published until some time after the year is over, but you can go up to 2006 or so. It also describes the relative strengths and weaknesses of using different indicators, and gives some concrete examples of the sort of things you might use with one or the other. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1900 you could hire a laborer for $1 a day, but you would get few takers today for $25.47 per day. Edison (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edison --- why is that? If the dollar values are (theoretically) equal or identical.  Wouldn't the same laborers willing to work for $1.00 (then) be the same group of people willing to work for $25.47 (now)?  If not, why not, given that the dollar amount is the same?  Thanks.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Because people's wages and standard of living have gone up by more than inflation. The average family, for example, can afford to buy far more possessions than an average family in 1900. However you probably could easily find people willing to work for $25 a day in China and other third-world countries. (Are we exploiting them by not paying them enough for their goods?) 80.2.202.35 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the term "purchasing power" is misleading. I would assume that if I had $1.00 in 1900, I am in the same financial position as if I had $25.47 in 2007.  I guess I included some unwarranted premises?  To me, that is what "equal purchasing power" would mean.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Most prolific fathers
Could someone provide a list of the most prolific fathers. And a list of the numbers of children they fathered.--Gary123 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should check out the Guiness Book of Records --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brigham Young had at least 56 children. Osama bin Ladin has about 50 siblings. - Nunh-huh 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Living, it might be this man with 78 and counting. Historically, it's possibly Genghis Khan. It would be very hard to devise a complete, well-referenced list. Marskell (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural commodity prices
What is a website where I can find basic commodity prices. I don't want one with a some big fancy graph that I can't understand or lots of big confusing numbers. I just want the prices. Ive been looking for awhile now and haven't found anything. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a table listing agricultural commodity prices on the right side of this page when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is open for trade. Any website that keeps commodity prices current is going to be oriented to serious traders, who will want more information than you may want.  Still, you should be able to find the information you want on this site or other sites that publish commodity price quotes.  Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

bible, talmud etc other books
The old testament etc really seems to be a mine of hisorical information. Are there any other sources that give a similar level of insight into 'bronze/iron age' societies and customs, outside these judaic related texts. (I've already considered egyptian heiroglyphs) - doesn't have to be middle eastern.83.100.183.180 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots! (You want written documents, rather than archaeological data, right?) The History of Literature page is a great jumping off point. The Vedas are packed with cultural details, and you can look at the Epic of Gilgamesh, Book of the Dead and related items, early Chinese writings, and lots more. WikiJedits (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks.83.100.183.180 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Talmud is a wealth of information, but for the early centuries AD. AllenHansen (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the Amarna letters. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Light
In near death experiences and the like, eg paranormal phenomenon, people are told to eith go or not go into the light. I wish to read our article if there is one on The Light —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at our article on Near-death experience. Personally, I am suspicious that they are anything other than brain misfirings correlated with cultural expectations and experience, but I am without doubt a skeptic. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it that you are familiar with this poem? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Popes and Emperors
Was there a gap between the last Roman Emporer and the first Pope, or did they overlap? Was there a transition when Emperors became Popes, or are they two distinctly different and unconnected roles? 80.0.107.56 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Emperors and Popes are two different things. Emperors were typically crowned by Popes. Sometimes Emperors even disposed of Popes. To my knowledge no Emperor has been a Pope or vice versa though perhaps someone knows better than I. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

80.0.107.56, did you read the two articles that you linked to? Anyway, according to Roman Catholic tradition, the first pope (bishop of Rome) was Saint Peter in AD 33. Traditionally, the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire was Romulus Augustulus. In AD 476, he lost his throne to Odoacer who chose not to use the imperial title and styled himself King of Italy instead. So between 33 and 476, you've got 443 years of overlap. The Roman imperial title was revived by Charlemagne when he was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III in AD 800. During the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, created in AD 962, and the papacy were the two major politial powers in Europe, often in conflict with each other (see Investiture Controversy). Arguably, the Austrian Empire (later Austria-Hungary), which existed from 1804 until 1918, was a successor state to the Holy Roman Empire, so from 962 to 1918, you've got another 956 years of overlap. Tha papacy had its ups and downs, but it has existed continuously for the last two millenia. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And meanwhile, the real Emperor continued to rule in Constantinople until 1453, happily frustrating the Pope for centuries! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And the tradition of the Eastern Roman Empire (and of frustrating the Popes of Rome) was later continued by the Russian Emperors until 1917. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At the same time of the Ottoman Sultans also claimed of being the heirs of the Byzantine emperors. There were simply more than one emperor at the same time (sometimes as much as 3), all of them claiming to be the successors of the old Roman emperors (and hence political heirs of Julius Caesar). First there was the emperor of the Byzantine empire (which was called "Roman empire" by its inhabitants). Then in AD 800 the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman emperor. After a while the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was portrayed by its emperors to be the revival of the Roman Empire and backed by the Catholic Pope. This irritated the Byzantine Basileus which were backed by the Orthodox church. After the Fall of Constantinople the Ottoman Sultans and the Russian Czars claimed to be its heirs. The term "real" is very subjective. Flamarande (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Adam used the word "real" humorously. By the outbreak of the First World War, Europe had at least three, if not more, emperors, all of whom, in some way, claimed to be heirs to the traditions of the ancient Roman Empire. Their imperial titles derived either from the Latin word imperator (French empereur, Russian император) or from the cognomen of Gaius Iulius Ceasar (German Kaiser, Bulgarian цар). And it's not like there was always only one pope at a time. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the confusion may arise from the fact that the Roman Catholic pope has appropriated some of the titles and other marks of nobility previously used by the ancient Roman emperors. See, for example, Pontifex Maximus. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

80.0, you might also wish to look at Caesaropapism, though this is more relevant to the Eastern Church.

I am not sure if Adam was serious in referring to the rulers of the Byzantine east as the 'real' emperors, though I suspect any humour intended was draped in the irony common among historians. I, though, am quite serious in insisting that they were the real emperors, intending no irony whatsoever! The occupants of the imperial throne in Constantinople were real in the sense that they had their authority and legitimacy from Constantine the Great, and through him all the way back to Augustus. Odoacer did not 'usurp' the imperial power; in removing Romulus Augustulus he merely ended its division, all nominal authority handed back to Zeno and his successors in Constantinople. One Emperor; one Empire; one God. Charlemagne, by this measure, was a parvenu; a pretender crowned by a western pontiff on no certain authority, simply because the throne of the Roman world was occupied by a woman! Alas, preserve us all from barbarians playing at being Romans! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clio, is your last sentence a reference to the toga party, perhaps? That's what it made me think of, anyway. I think a case could be made that barbarians playing at being Romans (Theodoric comes to mind in addition to Charlemagne) are preferable to barbarians serious about being barbarians. Deor (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Toga parties, yes, that's good! Barbarians playing at Romans merely serves to highten their conceit-it does not make them any less barbarous!  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was half-joking, but people do tend to forget that the Roman Empire didn't disappear at all, it just wasn't in Rome anymore. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyable eastern and other non-western ancient classics?
What eastern classics would people recommend reading for pleasure? Similarly, are there other non-western classics people would suggest? 80.0.107.56 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, depending on what you define as "eastern", "classic" and "enjoyable", I venture to suggest one of the most "enjoyed" such texts would be the Kama Sutra. 1001 Arabian Nights is also quite entertaining. Book of Esther is also a right riveting read, and topical too, as the anniversary of its denouement is this coming Friday. --Dweller (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Richard Burton translation of Arabian Nights is most enjoyable in my opinion. You can tell he liked risqué stories.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mahābhārata and the Ramayana are, without question, great works. Try also The Tale of Genji.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I found The Tale of Genji to be one of the most boring books I’ve ever read so I guess it’s a matter of taste. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never read Popol Vuh, but you might want to look at that, too. I don't know anything about African literature, unfortunately, to know what to recommend there.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Romance of the Three Kingdoms from china could be compared to if anything shakespeares english war plays - lots of battles.83.100.183.180 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Note I haven't actually recommended it but have heard that many have enjoyed it.


 * Genji is a very slow read... I'd recommend the Epic of Gilgamesh which has a lot of story (some of which you may find familiar in other settings). SaundersW (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also from China, Dream of the Red Chamber aka Story of the Stone. Family, by Ba Jin, is a modern classic (early 20th century) of Chinese literature, along with Lu Xun's short stories (including Diary of a Madman, Medicine, The True Story of Ah Q and others). Steewi (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Shahnameh.--Goon Noot (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pillow Book of Sei Shōnagon. -- Julia Rossi (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try The Art of War,the Tao Te Ching, The Setting Sun, Dream of the Red Chamber, and Ikite iru Heitai by Tatsuzō Ishikawa. Hope that helps, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hagakure is challenging but good but hardly qualifies as ancient, being from the 18th century. Vranak (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

grandville sharp rule
I was wanting to ask a question about Grandville Sharps rule on Matt 28:19 when it states that if the article "the" is used more than once it is referring to different persons example: in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost does this rule apply also to the scripture Acts 7:32 I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Does this rule apply to this scripture and if not can you tell me why not? Thank you Kennyt77 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Granville Sharp was, according to our article, writing about supposed mistranslations of the greek, and expressing his view of a rule pertaining to the greek original. I'm not sure that the rule is applicable to the English translation, for a couple of reasons: the English translation may be suspect (according to GS), and the rule may pertain only in Greek grammar. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese instrument
I am looking for a Chinese (or perhaps Japanese) instrument that is pronounced "who", but am unsure of the spelling or type of instrument. Unfortunatley these are all the details I have - Google and Wikipedia haven't helped me out much here. Thanks in advance. 92.0.118.76 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you had a look through Category:Chinese musical instruments, which sports such things as the Zhu (string instrument) ... or List of traditional Chinese musical instruments? Ditto Category:Japanese musical instruments and Traditional Japanese musical instruments. Good luck. You /might/ want to ask this on the language desk, since someone there may have a clue about whjatever chinese word might resemble the English "who". --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you perhaps mean the erhu? It's pretty well-known in the west, and is sometimes known as the "Chinese violin".  Antandrus  (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Erhu is one type of several grades of the Huqin: "Hu [ethnic group] string instrument". I suspect your "Who" refers to the various types of Huqin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Who owns the freehold of London's roads & why
I'm playing around with articles on London roads & their names right now. And it occurs to me to ask, having read history after history of rich knobs building estates on their land ... who owns the roads? Case in point might be Tottenham Court Road, but the same might as easily be asked of Downing Street or Bedford Square or a hundred others. At the time of their development, the land beneath the roads was squarely owned by a Fitzroy or a Duke of Bedford or whoever. Who now owns the freehold? If not the landed estate (e.g. the Bedfords still own an unheathy amount of property in London), then, in general terms, how & when and at what cost was the freehold passed to the borough authority? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suspect they count as a public road, i.e. part of the UK's roads - owned and maintained by the government at a cost to the tax-payer through Road Tax. That is unless they remain private roads which could allow them to introduce a toll (like a bridge near my home) to use it. I have no idea about the history of road-ownership but I suspect that the land-owners will have received some form of compensation for their troubles. There is the case of that weird house in the middle of the Pennines that has a bit of history to it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2193,00.html) around government offering money for the land but the farmer refusing to sell). ny156uk (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to some of the Notes & Queries replies, and also our article, the house in question remained in place because the M62 motorway had to avoid it for engineering reasons. On your earlier point, roads in the UK are maintained out of general taxation: there has been no such thing as 'Road Tax' for many years. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not be that the crown owns the freehold to all public roads. In English law, there is a concept of right of way whereby the public holds a right of access across privately owned land.  To determine the freehold status of a given road, you might need to consult the records at HM Land Registry.  Marco polo (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, OP, you may have meant "rich nob" (nob noun Chiefly British Slang. a person of wealth or social importance). On the other hand you may not. (knob noun Chiefly British Slang. Penis) DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the UK has Compulsory purchase orders, so ultimately it isn't open to a landowner to refuse to sell land which a public body is determined to acquire. AndyJones (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Long ago a phenomenon may have taken place in the UK similar to what took place in the US in rural areas: a farmer would grant the county a free right of way to construct a public road across his land, not purely out of altruism, but because road access increased the value of the land. In other cases the right of way could be acquired through a compulsory public domain process. If the county (or state) adandoned the road, or if a city vacated an alley, it could revert to the owner of the surrounding property. Sometimes a developer buys an entire city block, the city vacates the alley, and the developer builds over the former alley, which is no longer needed. This has the benefit of returning the property to the tax rolls. Edison (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Term Limits
Why are there no term limits for US Congress, Senators, and Federal Judges? I know the obvious answer is because the US constitution doesn't impose term limits. But my question is why shouldn't there be term limits? What is the argument for keeping this system. There seem to be arguments against them (i.e., the same arguments that give us term limits for other offices), but I don't quite see the argument for keeping it. Should the constitution be amended? Llamabr (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the arguments that I have heard is that "term limits" for congressional representatives happens naturally every other November. That is, if the electorate does not like a particular representative, they are always free to not reelect them. The argument is that it would be improper to countervene the will of the electorate and force a "good" representative out of office, just because he's been reelected a number of times. - Now whether you think that is a good argument is another question. (I'm also not sure of your implication as to the prevalence of term limits in the U.S. Aside from the President, I'm of the impression that term limits are the exception, rather than the rule.) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the article United States federal judge the Federal Judges don't have any kind of terms and aren't elected. They are appointed by the current President. Flamarande (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Term limits force elected officals out of office at the end of their term. This limits the right of the people to choose to reelect someone who they feel is doing a good job.  The people already have the right to impose a term limit themselves by merely not reelecting someone. Thomprod (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Back in the early to mid-90s, when the term-limit movement was at its height, the group U.S. Term Limits tried to get term limits imposed on members of Congress. They got initiatives passed in some states putting term limits on U.S. representatives from those states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those limits were unconstitutional. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "why the President and not Congress"... Congress amends the Constitution. The President just takes the blame.  So, Congress is happy to impose a term limit on the President.  Don't expect them to impose one on themselves.  They are too busy giving themselves raises (with free health care) and blaming whoever the current President is for the cost. --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there'd have to be an amendment to the constitution in order to pass Congressional term limits at a federal level. Previous instances have been struck down in the courts because they were attempts by individual states to impose term-limits on Congress, but Article One of the United States Constitution declares that Congress itself has authority to determine conditions of election and eligibility for its members... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle registration and inspections
When a rental agency licenses a vehicle in a particular state which requires emissions testing or safety inspections and then the vehicle is driven out of that state, what happens with the tests or inspections? The vehicle may not be back in that state, possibly, for the rest of its ownership by the company. So does the rental company just submit paperwork on all of its thousands of vehicles to the various states or is there some special article of the laws that these companies fall under saying that the vehicle may not be in the state and thus aren't required to get the vehicle tested? Or is it a matter of policing themselves and they are obligated to have them inspected when the time has come and if the vehicle is in the necessary state? This is concerning the laws in the U.S. by the way.... Dismas |(talk) 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's to say it won't be back? Every time I've rented a car, I've been informed that if I don't return it to the point of origin, they'll add a $100 relocation fee to my bill. --Carnildo (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't say anything about the customer not returning it to the place that it was rented from.  Dismas |(talk) 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if the customer either returns the car to the place where it was rented or the rental company returns the car to its place of origin if the customer doesn't, how would the car end up in a different state? In any case, what matters is where the car is registered.  The car can be driven anywhere as long as it meets the registration requirements in the state where it is registered.  The car must be registered wherever it is regularly kept by its owner, in this case the rental company.  For the car to end up in a different state (other than through an accident), the rental company would have to decide to transfer it.  It would then need to meet the registration requirements and be registered in the new state.  Marco polo (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I read some sort of nefarious purpose to Carnildo's response. I'm not implying anything like that.  So if the customer returns it to a previously agreed on location, which is not in the same state, what happens?  In the last month I've rented two vehicles, both here in Vermont, which have had out of state plates.  We have yearly inspections here.  So if a Vermont registered vehicle is dropped off in another state, what happens?  Dismas |(talk) 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that if the rental company intends to keep a car in a different state from the one where it was registered, it needs to register the car in the new state. I know that in Massachusetts, the car's owner is legally required to register a car in Massachusetts within a certain number of days or weeks of garaging a vehicle here (i.e. regularly parking it here overnight).  Of course, plenty of people maintain out-of-state registrations on vehicles kept in Massachusetts in order to save on insurance, but it isn't legal.  I don't know whether car rental companies skirt these laws.  Marco polo (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting (maybe) fact: all U-Haul vehicles are registered in Arizona. --Nricardo (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bharata Janata Party West Bengal and Tripura leaders
Who are the leaders of the Bharata Janata Party of West Bengal and Tripura? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The best way to find out would be to email them directly an ask; details can be found on the BJP website under "State Offices" Samilong (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)samilong