Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 5

= November 5 =

President Start Date?
Why is it months after the election the new president starts there job in the white house {82.47.78.127 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)}
 * I think that in the "old" days, it took a lot longer to count votes and to spread the news around. The original date for inauguration was actually on March 4th, but that long period of time eventually spawned "lame-duck presidents", so the third section of the 20th Amendment changed the date to January 20th. — Ed   17   (talk)  — 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Several things have to happen before the new president can start his job. First, the electors of the Electoral College have to cast their votes for President and Vice President.  This will happen on December 15th.  Then, Congress must meet and count the votes of the Electoral College and declare a winner.  This will happen on January 6th, 2009.  Then, the new President-Elect must be sworn in to office.  This will happen on January 20th, 2009.  Only then can the new President officially start their job.--Zerozal (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does the Electorate collage have to come together at all if everyone in the country already voted? Isn't that just a waste of a whole lot of time and money? - Mgm|(talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They have to because that's what the Constitution specifies, and also because it's a ritual much like the voting process that Mark Shields calls a civic sacrament. You could change or even do away with the Electoral College by amendment.  Every four years there's a lot of discussion about doing so, but that's pretty much all it is: discussion.  The two-plus month schedule does allow for some transition -- e.g., planning time, discussions with potential officials in the new cabinet.  Bush is still president, but will not be able to pass any significant legislation unless the Democrats want it passed.  He'll have to confine himself to executive orders, rewrites of regulations, speechifying, and as he so delicately put it, getting ready to refill his personal coffers. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Electoral College never does "come together". There are 51 separate meetings, one in each state and one in Washington DC, each sending in its own set of vote results.  --Anonymous, 09:12 UTC, November 6, 2008.

Roe v. Wade Question
I read through our article and am still confused on a particular point. If the supreme court ruled that "most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" then does that mean that abortion then became legal in all 50 states?

I thought that if the constitution doesn't specifically allow (or forbid) something, then it's up to the states to decide---can someone clear this up for me?

Basically--when are states allowed to make their own laws?24.147.171.20 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the states do have their own laws. As a matter of fact, the legality of abortions are up for a vote in North Dakota (I think that's what the news said this morning) today as part of the rest of the general election.  Dismas |(talk) 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Court basically said that there was a Constitutional right to privacy, and thus the Constitution did specifically forbid specific types of laws (in this case, against abortion). That's the entire point of invoking the Constitution. If they said, "the Constitution doesn't go one way or another" then it would be a totally state-by-state thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically spells out which powers are granted to the federal government.  If it's not in this list, then it's not anything that the federal government has juristiction over.  So yes, it's left to the states or to the people to decide.  The only way around this is through a Constitutional amendment.  But the Forteenth Amendment is about civil rights and grants citizenship to former slaves.  It has nothing to do with abortion.  Roe vs Wade is an example of legislating from the bench.  In the United States, we have a Constitution, but we don't really follow all of it anymore. 216.239.234.196 (talk)

16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. A majority of the United States Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade that a right to privacy, particularly on matters of bodily integrity, exists under the penumbra of the Constitution. The Court looked at the rights conferred, the structure of the Constitution and concluded that restrictions on abortion violated the Constitution. Subsequent Supreme Court majorities have upheld such a right. One may read the Fourteenth Amendment and find what one seeks. No one besides the individual is particularly interested because it is the constitutional function of the Court to delineate the Fourteenth Amendment. To say that Roe is social legislation from the bench is to state an opinion, not the Court's holding to this very day. A majority of the Court may decide to overturn Roe or the states may ratify an amendment overturning Roe. Roe remains valid law until then.
 * No, the simple fact is the federal government has gotten out of control and no longer follows the limits imposed by the Constitution. Article I Section 8 is now completely ignored.  As for the Fourteenth Amendment, that is about slavery.  It has nothing to do with abortion.  If you went back in time when the amendment was being drafted and told them that it was about abortion, they would have looked at you like you were crazy.  The decision hasn't been overturned primarily because the issue of legalized abortion is more important to people than the issue of constitutionality. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Legislating from the bench" can sometimes mean "a court decision I disagree with." In fact, the U.S. has had two forms of law throughout its history.  Statutory law consists of legislation -- laws passed by legislative bodies from the Congress to the 50 state legislatures to statutes of the smallest towns.  Such legislation can't take in every eventuality, and so people go to the courts when there's disagreement about how a statute might apply.  Appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts; the decision of the appellate court becomes part of case law.   Courts (and lawyers) look at the way in which other courts have ruled in certain circumstances.  As appeals move through the court system, case law becomes more authoritative -- e.g., decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court set precedent for lower courts in the Michigan system.  Decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court contribute to federal case law.
 * As an example, the right to remain silent is not statutory law; in Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court held that interrogating a suspect without advising him of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights was unconstitutional. Today, Americans almost universally see "Miranda rights" as a basic protection, though no legislative body voted such protection.
 * It's possible, though unlikely, that a future court would overturn Miranda, or that legislation might try to alter some of the protections that courts have found. And, as in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, a court decision can be overturned by a subsequent amendment to the Constitution.  --- OtherDave (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Roe v. Wade is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the fourteenth amendment. Read up on due process and substantive due process. Roe v. Wade is a decision completely in the spirit of what was intended with the fourteenth amendment. Women have a fundamental right to make decisions about their own bodies, and it absolutely is unconstitutional for a state to deny them that right. Belisarius (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Women abosutely do NOT have a fundamental right to make decisions about their own bodies. If they did, prostitution and drugs would be legal.  Roe vs Wade has nothing to do with constitutionality.  It's simply a decision about abortion, constitutionality be damned.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights was originally supposed to limit the powers of Congress alone. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended constitutional protections to the state level as well, or so it's interpreted now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Shiny question
Why are some men (well, at least me, for example) so obsessed with women wearing shiny clothes? At least I can't resist looking at a woman of around my age wearing a shiny swimsuit, or a shiny dress. The shinier, the better. I know what I like, I just can't explain why I like it. And are there women who like men wearing something shiny? J I P | Talk 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know but my eye is also drawn to shiny things that aren't wrapped around women. I'm rather visual and tactile oriented.  If something has a interesting texture to it, I have much the same interest in it that I would if it were shiny.  I just want to touch it.  Dismas |(talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no excuse for personal taste. Why do I look at a hedgehog and think it is a cute and cuddly little animal and others look at it and see nothing but dangerous spikes?  I seriously doubt there is any reference that could be provided other than one that shows different people prefer different things. --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would point you to the article on De gustibus non est disputandum but it is terrible. Rmhermen (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ -- I find the article perfect! Or what, would you prefer it be in wiktionary or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are biologically wired to track movements; shiny fabrics offer a lot more variation in color vs. angle of view and add reflections of surrounding objects, which change all the time because people actually constantly make small movements even when they're still, and thus attract more attention. MaxVT (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Glitter. I lo-ove glitter. Sequins, spangles, sun spots on water, dewbeads on spider's webs, raindrops, water spray in sunlight, on a swimmer's face, fishscales, mother-of-pearl, carbonation, all those flashing shiny things. But I never wear any. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

848
What is the significance of number 848 in History or as a matter of fact is there anything at all? Just wanted to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.240.72 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Local 848 of the United Auto Workers was founded in 1943 at North American Aviation. Senate Bill 848 was referred to the Judiciary Committee June 25, 2003. Destroyer DD-848, the USS Witek, was launched February 2, 1946.  848 dogs were at the Sand and Sea Kennel Club event in August 1967. Edison (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Various things happened in 848, and some very important things happened in 1848. Algebraist 08:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

METAL BOATS FIRST USED WHEN?
When did the United States Navy first use metal boats (not ships) and who created them? I do know that the USN had and used them before the American Civil War, circa 1850s

Seastone (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)seastone


 * Wait. What do you mean? (Define "boats") — Ed   17   (talk)  — 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, am unclear on the exact difference between boats and ships, but the article for boat contains this information: "In 1855 ferro-cement boat construction was patented by the French. They called it Ferciment. This is a system by which a steel or iron wire framework is built in the shape of a boat's hull and covered (troweled) over with cement. Reinforced with bulkheads and other internal structure it is strong but heavy, easily repaired, and, if sealed properly, will not leak or corrode. These materials and methods were copied all over the world, and have faded in and out of popularity to the present. As the forests of Britain and Europe continued to be over-harvested to supply the keels of larger wooden boats, and the Bessemer process (patented in 1855) cheapened the cost of steel, steel ships and boats began to be more common."


 * It doesn't provide any information on Navy use, but if this process was first used in 1855 and you're referring to a pre-Civil War usage, that should narrow down your time frame a bit. Tomdobb (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The defination of a boat and a ship sometimes is confusing and especially over time as with Viking "longboats". Wikipedia defines both boat and ship. A boat is smaller than a ship and if ever in the USN never call a ship a "boat". A ship's longboats or "lifeboats" are "boats". A submarine is called a "U-Boat" or just "boat", so these can confuse us. I thank you, Tomdobb for the information. Let me provide more information on what I have been reading. I do not know when the United States Navy first started using metal boats nor who invented them but here is some history that perhaps should be on Wikipedia. Commander William Francis Lynch, USN, wrote a book entitled, Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the River Jordan and Dead Sea. I believe the first publishing was in 1847 and I know a second publishing was in 1849. Page 13 with details found on the following link: http://books.google.com/ . p.13 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. ON the 8th of May, 1847, the town and castle of Vera Cruz having some time before surrendered, and there being nothing left for the Navy to perform, I preferred an application to the Hon. John Y. Mason, the head of the department, for permission to circumnavigate and thoroughly explore the Lake Asphaltites or Dead Sea. --My application having been for some time under consideration, I received notice, on the 31st of July, of a favourable decision, with an order to commence the necessary preparations.--On the 2d of October, I received an order to take command of the U. S. store-ship
 * "Supply," formerly called the "Crusader."-- In the mean time, while the ship was being prepared for her legitimate duty of supplying the squadron with stores, I had, by special authority, two metallic boats, a copper and a galvanized iron one, constructed So, at this early date of 1847 the United States Navy used metal boats. When W. F. Lynch put ashore in the Holy land he removed these two boats and "assembled" them. Another tidbit of history forgotten. Lynch found that camels would pull the boats behind them when they were placed on a carriage. That is another historical first. But who invented these two different metal boats and when were they first used as well as when did the _United States Navy_ first use metal boats? Thus far I can only determine that this was the U S Navy's first use of metal boats to would carry several men in each as both boats traveled down the Jordan river with rapids and later just floating upon the Dead Sea as soundings were taken of the Dead Sea bottom


 * I thank all who try to help in learning when these type of metal boats were first used by the United States Navy and in seeking out who invented these unique boats that were not fragile as wooden boats and were also designed to be taken apart for storage and transportation and then assembled where desired. This is a unique piece of American history.
 * seastone (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

painting sources
in the article on robert bruce Cotton it shows a portrait of him, but has no reference to the location of the painting how do I go about finding the source/location of the photo/painting?219.89.60.235 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
 * If you mean Sir Robert Cotton, 1st Baronet, of Connington, then "the portrait is now the property of The Rt. Hon. Lord Clinton, D.L., 22nd Baron Clinton, of Heanton Satchville, Devon." according to this. (Found by googling "Sir Robert Cotton" under image search, and compared with the image shown on the WP page.) Gwinva (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by college education...
I'm looking for an analysis of the quality of the presidents' education achievements, and how Obama would rank in it. Does a list like this exist? --KnightMove (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I foresee a problem in the list (should you find it). For 8 years, many people have claimed that GW Bush has no education even though he has a college degree.  So, how do you define "education" if others can come in and claim that a freshman House representative (GHW Bush) can easily force Yale to give good grades to his son. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But for example, a list how many presisdents did achieve a "magna cum laude" or even a "summa cum laude" would be helpful. --KnightMove (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we ignore the difference between "college degree", "education" and "intelligence" and look for presidents who may have been geniune "geniuses", the following candidates for the "smartest" or "best educated" president spring to mind:
 * James A. Garfield, who was president for about 6 months before being assassinated, showed serious genius, and some quirky talents as well. He published what is considered a novel proof of the Pythagorean theorem, while a serving Congressman, he spoke several languages fluently, and famously could translate and write any passage given him in English simultaneously into Greek and Latin with each hand.
 * Thomas Jefferson was a rennaissance man, besides being a gifted writer and statesman, was an architect and botanist.
 * Herbert Hoover gets the shaft for his poor handling of the Depression, but he was quite competant in some very different fields, including engineering, business, and international relations. He built himself a private fortune in mining, and also led efforts in the rebuilding of Europe after WWI.
 * Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, which is in itself quite an accomplishment.
 * Woodrow Wilson had studied at 4 different colleges, and was, IIRC, the only PhD to become president of the U.S.
 * Jimmy Carter has a college degree in Physics. He was part of the U.S. Navy's first Nuclear Engineering program, and would have likely served on the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered submarine, had his father's death not cut his naval career short.  He may be the only President whose college degree was in a "hard" science.
 * There ya go... I would go with Woodrow Wilson as the best educated (PhD and all), James Garfield for raw genius, and possibly either Jefferson or Hoover for most accomplished outside of politics. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Be a bit careful about education = smart. George "Dubious" Bush has an MBA. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx for the info. Well, I'm not in danger to confuse that... a more precise question: What other US presidents have taught at university? --KnightMove (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Uzbekistan
Hello dear Wikifriends !! I was looking for the answer to my question for a long time in different sites,but could not find anything.So could you please help me with my question.I am writing a thesis about "The World`s multicultural countries". I am comparing USA,Canada,Australia. While I was doing my researches, I found one more country ,I think that ,that country also a multicultural one. I am speaking about the Uzbekistan. I think that the Uzbekistan is unknown ,but very interesting multicultural country.I`ll be very obliged,if somebody helps me with the articles(information)about the multiculturalism in Uzbekistan. About the laws which supporting different cultures and traditions, the identity of the different nations. Thanks beforehand.


 * The Demographics of Uzbekistan article says the country is 80% Uzbek with no other group at more than about 5%. You might look at Demographics of Malaysia for a better example of a country with multiple ethnic groups. The multiculturalism article should also be of help. 64.228.90.86 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Which US Presidents were sons of immigrants?
Who were the most recent US Presidents who had at least one parent born in another country (not including parents born overseas on military bases, etc.--I want to know whose parents were foreigners)?--69.114.164.38 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Barack Obama would be the most obvious recent one. On a side note, his grandmother lives in the UK, claiming welfare benefits.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama is not yet US president, and may might never be so. Algebraist 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that he has a few months before he takes over from Bush, but why will he never be President...? &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he could die of some horrible disease, or simply of a heart attack brought on by the strenuousness of the campaign. Or be assassinated.  Or change his mind and resign before he takes office.  All highly improbable, I hope, but all very possible.  --  JackofOz (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good trivia question. Prior to Obama, the only one that leaps to my mind is Andy Jackson, the son of Scotch-Irish immigrants (or Scots-Irish, for the politically correct). —Kevin Myers 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, now I realize that the original questioner actually asked three different questions, perhaps without realizing it. To wit: (1) Which presidents were sons of immigrants? (2) Which presidents had at least one parent born in another country? (3) Which presidents had parents who were foreigners? Andrew Jackson is an answer to questions 1 & 2, Obama is an answer to 2 & 3. Early presidents whose parents were born in the colonies before the establishment of the US could technically be answers to 2 & 3. Unless I'm forgetting someone, Obama might be unique in having a parent who (post 1776) was never a US citizen. —Kevin Myers 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In asking "who had parents who were foreigners", that can be vague enough to include a President who has at least one parent who changed citizenship to another country. I don't know if that has happened. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Washington an immigrant himself? :) Both his parents were "foreign". --217.227.70.113 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The original colonists are not normally considered immigrants. -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And Washington's parents were not original colonists. They were both born in Virginia. Algebraist 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, Martin Van Buren was the first president to literally be born in the U.S., as he was the first born after 1776. All the earlier presidents technically were born on British soil.  I know this is not what the questioner was asking.  Andrew Jackson seems to be the earliest example of a president for whom at least one parent was not born in territory that was or would become the U.S.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another oddity: Chester Alan Arthur may have been born in Canada, there is some question as to whether he was born in Quebec or Vermont; though it is a moot point since his parents themselves were American citizens, making him a "natural born" citizen, regardless of the actual location. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on Arthur linked above says that Arthur's father immigrated from Ireland to Quebec first and only afterwards to the US and therefore that if Arthur actually was born in Quebec then he would not have been a "natural-born citizen".  But his mother was American-born; I have no idea whether US citizenship was then inherited from either parent, but will ask on the article's talk page.  The article also says that there is no proof either way as to his birth. It also refers to "Quebec, Canada", which is anachronistic; I'll fix that.  --Anonymous, 20:18 UTC, November 9, 2008.  (Added 20:30 UTC: Oops, it's semi-protected, I can't fix it. I'll mention it on the talk page, then.)


 * What is all this talk about Obama not being president yet? Has the BBC taken the precidented step of declaring American news before it happens, like they did with the 911 'attacks', or is my internet bandwith ridiculously fast? He is president, as far as all the news we are getting says!--ChokinBako (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People like to be technical. Barack Obama will become president when he takes the oath of office, which happens after...well, see Electoral College for the details.  So he's the president-elect, unless you like to wallow in the inside-baseball factoidism found on the Barack Obama talk page.  --- OtherDave (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He becomes president at noon on 20 January 2009, and not a moment before. GWB remains president till then.  Technically, Obama's not yet even the president-elect, but for most practical purposes he may as well be.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page of our President of the United States article has the following line which was removed from the article at some point: "Only one president was the son of two immigrant parents: Andrew Jackson. Five presidents (Jefferson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, Hoover) had just one immigrant parent each." Rmhermen (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

One more oddity: Barack Obama is the first person elected president who was born in the second half of the 20th century. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call that an oddity. Did you expect to find any others born in this period - Lincoln, perhaps, or Truman?  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be silly, wouldn't it? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Margin of victory
I notice that Obama won 93% of the votes cast in Washington D.C. (interestingly, in Ward 8, he won 99%, and in Precinct 118, he appears to have won all but four votes). Is this a record? Is there any county, even, elsewhere in the U.S. which has endorsed one candidate so strongly in recent years? Warofdreams talk 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember hearing about a small town in Utah where everyone voted for George W. Bush, but I'm at work and can't find a reference for it. Tomdobb (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Searching around, I've managed to answer one part of my question - in Glasscock County, Texas, 93% of votes in 2000 went to Bush. But I can't find anything on past vote shares for Washington D.C., and I'd be interested to see if previous candidates took more than 93% in one county. Warofdreams talk 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Washington, DC is well-known to be radically Democrat (to the point of simply being anti-Republican). So, I would be surprised if any Democratic candidate ever failed to get at least 90% of the vote. This shows county by county the historical Democrat/Republican votes. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of Washington D.C.'s 400,000 registered voters, only about 216,000 voted. (Many Americans are unaware that the District of Columbia has no vote in Congress, which is why DC license plates sport the motto "taxation without representation." Residents can vote for president thanks to the 23rd amendment.)  Also, John McCain and the Republican Party in general did not do well in urban areas.  D.C. is a 68-square-mile city (9,500 people per square mile) and so not easily compared with, say, Utah (85,000 square miles, 27 people per square mile).  --- OtherDave (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is no surprise that Obama easily won in DC, but I still find the margin of victory surprising. I've managed to find past results, and this is indeed the highest percentage any Democrat has received in the district, although it has been over around 90% at the last two elections.  I'm still interested to see if any counties have shown more than 93% support for one candidate in the past. Warofdreams talk 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's have some statistics!

Source: and similar pages.

The highest Republican is 96.59% surprisingly in the 1964 Democrat landslide - I guess Lyndon Johnson must have really got them mad - while the highest democrat is 95.35% in Seminole County, GA in 1960.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks - that's exactly what I was looking for! Warofdreams talk 16:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And looking the information that website gives, I've found the last occasion on which a candidate won a higher percentage share in a particular state was in 1944, when Roosevelt won 93.56% of the vote in Mississippi. I also see Roosevelt managed to take 100% of the vote in the small Armstrong County, South Dakota. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume blacks were prevented from voting in Holmes County in 1964 but would have voted overwhelmingly for Johnson who fought for civil rights for blacks, including the right to vote. That got a lot of whites in Mississippi mad. This was the last state to ratify the abolishment of slavery, and they did it in 1995. In 1964 before the election several civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi with little or no attention from Mississippi authorities who apparently participated in some of the murders. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama
You're article on Obama refers to him, more than once, as Arabian. Kenyan Father and White American Mother doesn't equal Arabian. Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.91.178 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism; it was fixed quickly. Please reload the page and try again. Antandrus  (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a progressive income tax considered socialist?
This question kind of came up in the previous discussion on socialism: Is a progressive income tax considered socialist? I'm going to say no because it does not involve ownership or control of a business or industry, nor does it directly involve wealth redistribution. But I'm curious to find out what other people's opinions are. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tax is not socialist. What the tax is used for can be socialist.  For example, if the U.S. decided to take over the auto industry (socializing it so that every person got one car free of charge), they could use tax money to fund it. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a great, concise answer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It tends towards socialism, but is not of itself socialist. I have to say that in my view, all government tends to socialism, to the extent that it advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization. I understand that after years of propaganda, socialism has a poor reputation in the US, bit I'm afraid this is one of the contradictions you'll have to live with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that in the US the definition of 'Socialism' is something that the rest of the world wouldn't recognise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Socialism is an ideal, and an ideal can inspire policies, but I wouldn't suggest inferring an ideal from a policy. It's better to think of things like this as a tradeoff between efficiency and equity (equality).  The ideal of 'socialism' encourages almost perfect equity, while, some would argue, some forms of capitalism aspire for perfect efficiency.  I would hope people realize that any practical policy would have to fall somewhere in between (and should reflect the views of the people).24.68.54.155 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama - The first time a black person becomes president of a majority white state?
--217.227.123.218 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not - Haiti back in the 1800's saw a revolution against the slave owners there led by Toussaint Louverture. However, I don't know if there were a majority of whites there at the time...but it is a possibility. — Ed   17   (talk)  — 18:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, taking into account the fact that "black" and "white", and indeed race itself, is not an easily defined attribute, makes this question difficult to answer. Obama, for example, under "classical" racial definitions is 50% black and 50% white.  However, if we take the question in a broader sense, we can look at instances in history when a person who was not a member of the "ethnic majority" in a nation became a leader of that nation, and we get some interesting examples, such as:
 * Bernardo O'Higgins. Ignoring whether one could consider "Irish" as a distinct ethnicity from "Spanish"; O'Higgins father was of Irish descent; he went on to become the head of state of Chile.  As a half-irish/half-spanish leader of a Latin-American country, one could at least make some claim of similarity to Obama (as a half-African-descent/half-European-descent leader of the US)
 * Alberto Fujimori, former president of Peru, born in Lima, Peru to Japanese-born parents.
 * Éamon de Valera, former president and taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland. Born in America to an Irish mother and a Cuban or Spanish or Mexican father (he claims Cuban, official records are sketchy on this).  Again, same basic ethnic background as Obama, being 1/2 the majority ethnicity and half of another.
 * Any of the apartheid-era Presidents of South Africa would qualify in reverse (that is, still a member of the minority ethnic group, though in this case, a white president of a black-majority nation. Historically very different situation than the U.S., but still superficially similar)
 * Again, whether one could consider being of different nationalities in Europe as being ethnically different, Nicolas Sarkozy, the current French president, may qualify. His father was Hungarian, and his mother was of Greek Jewish descent.
 * Again, I don't know how to directly answer the original question, since it seems to make some assumptions which, on the face, seem incorrect, but here are at least some parallels to the Obama presidency. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these examples work. Haiti was a very highly majority black state which is how the revolution could even succeed. none of Jayron's example fulfil the questioner's criteria. i cannot think of anyone who does. Perhaps in the Caribbean somewhere? Rmhermen (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to answer the question directly, as I noted I found it hard to answer, but I was trying to answer a related question, which involved the idea of someone from "outside" the majority ethnicity of a nation becoming leader of that nation (whatever "ethnicity" might mean given that time and place) --Jayron32. talk . contribs 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The real significance of Obama's victory is that a person widely perceived to belong to a group that has historically been subjugated, despised, and indeed enslaved by a country's majority has won a democratic election to the highest office in the land. This, to my knowledge, is really historically unprecedented.  Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question more directly, U.S. concepts of "black" and "white" do not have direct equivalents in other cultures, so it is hard to answer the question meaningfully. If it is a question of whether someone with dark skin has been president of a country where most people have lighter skin, one could cite the case of Anwar El Sadat, who was president of Egypt despite being darker-skinned than most Egyptians.  However, Egypt does not have the same concepts of race as the United States.  Egyptians did not consider Anwar El Sadat "black" or racially different, nor do most Egyptians consider themselves "white".  Those terms do not have the same meaning in Egypt.  Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Race is not that much an issue in Europe, and in German-speaking Europe it is popular to denie the existence of human races at all. However, in what way is the American concept of "black" and "white" different from European ones? --KnightMove (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * and the various Quebecois prime ministers of canada, loosely analogous. Gzuckier (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if we are looking for a subjugated minority person being democratically elected to the highest office in a country which is a majority of a different ethnicity, perhaps Evo Morales is the best prior example. Certainly not a black/white issue, but as noted that is a unique relationship in the U.S.  In Bolivia, the relationship between the native peoples and the European peoples is probably close to the Black/White relationship in the U.S. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the election of Evo Morales is similar in some ways, but Bolivia actually has an indigenous majority. So his election was a matter of the majority people finally attaining power, as they have in South Africa.  This is rather different from the accomplishment of Barack Obama, since African Americans account for not much more than one eighth of the U.S. population.  As I understand it, Morales won without much non-indigenous support.  So his victory was not a case of the dominant ethnic group rising above its prejudices to back a member of a subjugated group.  By contrast, a substantial majority of Obama's supporters are members of the dominant white majority, and he won despite being labeled a member of a subjugated minority group.  As for the Quebecois prime ministers of Canada, there are some parallels, but the Quebecois were never enslaved and never excluded from Canadian politics, as African Americans were in the United States.  Marco polo (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may very well be right about that... He may be completely unique in that regard, but let's try another attempt at finding a parallel. Scotsman Gordon Brown is the current PM of the UK... for most of history the Scottish have played a "subjugated" role in British politics.  Many scotsman suffered under English hegemony, at times Scotland was an independant Kingdom, but when the English did rule it (say, prior to Robert the Bruce and after the ascension of James VI and I to the English throne), the Scots had been second-class citizens on the British Isles.  Come to think of it, I can only, off hand, name 2 non-English prime ministers of the UK, Brown and Welshman David Lloyd George.  However, more recently the Scottish have not been excluded from the political sphere in the same way that African American have (as soon as 50 years ago, African Americans were actively disenfranchised; 50 years ago the Scottish were treated as equal British subjects to the English)... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I must add that I find the tone of the above comment rather offensive. "Fifty years ago the Scottish were treated as equal British subjects to the English"? At what point in British history were Scots denied a vote simply for being Scottish? You have to go back to the Middle Ages, long before universal suffrage, to find the kind of Braveheart-school-of-history subjugation of which you write. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Ramsay MacDonald were also Scottish. In terms of Britain, Benjamin Disraeli is a closer parallel to Obama, as his grandparents were all Jewish and had emigrated from Italy, although his parents had him baptised into the Church of England. Warofdreams talk 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen was, as his title indicates, Scottish. And the Duke of Wellington was Anglo-Irish. Note, however, that the prime minister is not the head of state, so the parallel does not really hold much water. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Leader of the Party
Another random question inspired by coverage of the US election.

The news today described Obama as having taken “control” of the senate and the senate/house of the representatives. Now I know that Obama is president and not leader of the party so is it him that takes control (constitutionally or by tradition), or the head of the party?

Now, my question is, how much control does the President (democrat in this case) have of the government houses. Does he lead the party, and are they whipped to follow his lead? When he promises a bill, does the party follow him 99% or is it mostly up to their conscience (wrt to public mandate etc)? 89.242.165.48 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tradition. Although Howard Dean is still the "chairman" of the Democratic Party, Obama is now the "symbolic" leader of the party.
 * None. Absolutely no control whatsoever. It's completely up to the consciences of each individual Senator. The only time (in recent memory) that I can think of where almost every senator followed the party line was during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (the resolution on Iraq too...?) — Ed   17   (talk)  — 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, if you go against the party too much, you may risk not getting the party nomination next time the elections come round. That isn't determined by the President, though. --Tango (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, several news sources have noted that Obama is in a unique position, as a sitting senator AND as de-facto party leader, to effect legislation during this "lame duck" period, and there has been some speculation that he may spearhead the calling of a "special session" of Congress to try to pass some recession-relielf legislation while he is still a Senator and before he becomes president, or that he could possibly set into motion some legislation that could be started now, and which would later be passed when he is innagurated at president in January. Its not often that a sitting member of the legislature is elected President. The last I can think of is JFK, and before him I can't think of any others in the 20th century... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Warren G. Harding was the other - only 3 have done it in the U.S.'s entire history, I believe. — Ed   17   (talk)  — 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So when Obama promises things in the election campaign that would require a bill to be passed to happen, how likely is it that he can actually push them though? Does the ‘‘party’’ then control the President (i.e. have they introduced his manifesto into the campaign)?


 * Are the houses whipped at all, by the party? Besides removal of the party nomination is there any other things the party does to cajole/threaten members to toe the line; jobs that are desired etc? 89.242.165.48 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Plenty of things - committee appointments, chairmanships, offers of White House or Cabinet positions, funding for you pork-barrel projects. Probably good parking spots, better seats, all kinds of incentives are possible. They might even "remove you from their caucus" as the newsmen keep warning may happen to Joe Lieberman. Rmhermen (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty likely if the ideas have the support of alot of Americans - the members of Congress don't want to get voted out like Elizabeth Dole did. :)
 * Not at all...it's not like Europe here. :D That's why the parties here are so much weaker than Europe's&mdash;they can't "enforce" the party line. This is also the reason why you see conservative Democrats around! — Ed   17   (talk)  — 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The President is considered the leader of his party, but this is mainly a symbolic leadership without the same powers as a prime minister in a parliamentary system. Obama's ability to get legislation through Congress will depend on his ability to secure the support of individual members of whichever party.  Philosophically, members of his own party are more likely to agree with most of his proposals.  To get less popular legislation through Congress, however, the president cannot rely on party discipline alone.  Party discipline is much weaker in the United States than in countries with parliamentary governments, and particularly weak among the Democratic Party.  Instead of party discipline, Obama will need to rely on his own prestige, his ability to promise favors to legislators in return for their backing of an unpopular bill (proposed law), and the debt of loyalty and obligation that many members may feel that they owe to Obama for creating a favorable sentiment toward Democrats in this election and thereby helping many Congresspeople win or hold onto their seats.


 * Within each house of Congress, there is a separate structure of party leadership. In the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House leads the majority party.  Her position is somewhat analogous to that of a prime minister, except without the executive power.  The Speaker of the House, together with the House Majority Whip, do attempt to enforce some party discipline through the awarding of desired positions to members and through the promise of favors in exchange for support of legislation.  The Senate has a much weaker leadership structure and a more collegial process of deal-making among members in which some members have greater power due to prestige, seniority, fundraising ability, and so on.  In each house of Congress, the President must work with the leadership and the more prominent members in order to mobilize support for desired legislation.   Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Senate still has party leaders and whips (Assistant party leaders of the United States Senate. Rmhermen (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, but I think that the process in the Senate is more informal and collegial and less often a matter of party discipline. Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little to add to Marco's excellent answer except perhaps some examples. Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress in 1993-94 but was unable to get one of his major campaign promises, universal healthcare, passed into law. This was in part because the Republicans still had enough votes in the Senate to filibuster any legislation they disliked and in part because Clinton didn't do a good enough job of convincing his fellow Democrats in Congress to support his plan. Jimmy Carter also had a majority in both houses but had terrible relations with Congressional leaders. Woodrow Wilson couldn't get a Democratic Senate to approve membership in the League of Nations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama's choice of Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff shows that he is strongly interested in working hand in hand with the Congress. Emmanuel is the current head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans
Ok, what exactly is the difference? We have republics and democratic republics and democracies. Is it just two names to differentiate the only two parties standing for election in the US? In which case, the name means nothing, because they are both standing for the same thing, if they think the name is what they are standing for. Can someone clarify this?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the names mean absolutely nothing. There may be historical reasons for their names, but these days they are just names. --Tango (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between the parties has very little to do with the name. The one very tenuous connection is historical. Republicanism was considered a nobler ideal than democracy, which in the context of the French Revolution was seen as rabble rule verging on anarchism.  By contrast, republicanism was conceived as a concern for the good of the body politic as a whole and of all of its members.  However, the Democratic Party championed the little man beginning with the political career of Andrew Jackson.  The Democratic Party in the mid-19th century had many Southern members and in the North was the party of immigrants, workers, and sometimes corrupt urban machines.  The Republican Party was founded as a reformist party by Northerners of largely indigenous stock, many of them members of the prosperous middle class.  They chose the name "Republican" partly harkening back to the earlier ideal and partly as an appeal to the ideals of self-reliance and civic-mindedness espoused by Thomas Jefferson, who had called his party Republican, although it was an ancestor of the subsequent Democratic Party.


 * Today the parties differ somewhat in their ideological focus and in the interest groups that they represent, although both parties represent politicians and voters with a broad range of interests and ideals. In practice, Republican tend to represent people who are culturally conservative and/or economically libertarian.  As a consequence, Republicans tend to want the state to police morality but to intervene minimally in the economy.  They are especially keen to limit taxation.  Republicans also tend to favor a strong, even aggressive military posture. Republicans are overwhelmingly white and typically not very sympathetic to the concerns of ethnic or racial minorities and lesbian or gay people.  Democrats tend to represent people who are culturally more liberal but who favor what in Europe would be considered very mild social democracy, including a role for government in assuring access to healthcare, which Republican typically oppose.  Democrats also have a strong constituency among non-whites and gay and lesbian people, whose interests they represent with varying degrees of effectiveness and enthusiasm.  Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo gives a pretty accurate description of things as they stand today; however it should be noted that when looked at over history, the two parties do not have any coherant ideology. They basically assume whatever ideology is convenient at that point in history to place their candidates into office.  Often times, one party or the other will assume a real ideology, and the opposite party takes the opposing ideology by default.


 * For example, in the 19th century, the Republican party was the abolitionist party, while the Democratic party was the party that supported slavery. From 1850's - 1950's, this split remained in the south, where the Solid south was controlled by Yellow Dog Democrats, i.e. they'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican.  When the Northern wing of the Democratic party became the champion of Civil Rights, many of these southern democrats "switched sides" to the Republican party by default, as I describe above.  It wasn't that the Republican party was against civil rights, it was that, by seizing the lead in civil rights, the Democratic Party forced a migration of largely segregationist Southern whites, who had been Democrats for generations, into the Republican party, and THAT'S what changed its ideology.


 * Something similar happened in the 1980's, when the Republican Party became the party of a coherant ideology, that of a fiscally conservative national government with a Hawkish foreign policy, created a class of voters known as Reagan Democrats; again mostly southern democrats who believed in generally conservative principles. Today, the descent of these Reagan Democrats are Blue Dog Democrats, a name chosen to reflect a connection to the Yellow Dog Democrats of time past.


 * Hope that helps understand the complicated nature of American party politics... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Republicans as "fiscally conservative" ? Since when? Ronald Reagan ran up the largest budget deficit (on an annual average basis) of any president in history, beating Jimmy Carter by over $100 billion (or 1.3 percentage points of GDP). He was in turn beaten by George HW Bush. Bill Clinton brought it down, and the current (p)resident beat his father's record. In fact, throughout the post-War era, Republican administrations have taken more out of the economy in taxes, and spent far more than Democrats, which is why they run such awful deficits. (Oh, and if you adjust for who controls one or both houses of congress, it doesn't change the results.) DOR (HK) (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's really fair to blame the president for deficits when it's Congress that holds the purse strings. In fact, usually whatever part has the Presidency, the opposition party has the Congress.  Anyone can just as easily say that the Democratic Congress ran up the deficits during the Reagan era, then the Republican Congress brought it down during the Clinton era.  Let's try not to be so partisan, OK? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to apportion blame for these kind of things without studying the details in depth (and even then it's not easy). However, I think it's worth noting that Congress holding the purse strings means they can stop the President spending, but they can't spend without the President's approval. That means either Congress or the President can take the credit for a surplus but both have to take the blame for a deficit. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is true. If my memory is correct, it was during the Nixon administration that Congress allocated funds in the budget for some project and the President refused to spend the money. Congress then passed a law requiring the President to spend monies allocated in the budget. Wikiant (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Republicans believe that individuals are not competent to make social decisions. Democrats believe that individuals are not competent to make economic decisions. Libertarians believe that the state is not competent. Wikiant (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the beautiful thing is, they're all right! :) --Tango (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer Lewis Black's interpretation: "Republicans are the party of bad ideas. Democrats are the party of no ideas.  In Congress, you have a Republican who stands up and announces, 'I have a real crappy idea.'  Then, a Democrat stands up and announces, 'I can make that idea even crappier!'" --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Republican'ts think government is the problem; Democrats think government can be part of the solution. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're not American, you can't really go wrong by thinking of the republicans as the baddies and the democrats as the 'less-baddies'. It certainly avoids any heated dinner table discussions82.22.4.63 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What does entropy have to do with a surjective sense of time?
Ok, I have begun studying materialism vs. idealism (actually I'm trying to figure why I am (here)... but I figured this would be a good start).

The end of the article on Materialism says


 * "Science has provided substantial evidence against the existence of a physical flow of time (see special relativity). However, humans possess a subjective sense of the flow of time. Critics of materialism could argue that it's impossible for a subjective sense of time to arise from something that doesn't flow in time, that is if they were to ignore the Second law of thermodynamics.

As I feel there is something within me that strongly opposes materialism (but I can't say it is based on logic), this quote thrills me! However, what I don't get is what it says in the end. What does the Second law of thermodynamics regarding entropy have to do with this?

Before you answer, can you try to imagine the Pope of the Vatican trying to rob a bank? Now you have a good illustration of how new I am to these things. So please, keep your answers simple if you can.

Thanks!

PureRumble (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The second law of thermodynamics basically says, in a different statement, that the universe is tending towards a constant, evenly spread energy. As it stands right now, the universe is full of hot places (i.e. stars) and cold places (i.e. not stars).


 * All work in the universe arises ultimately as a product of the hot places warming up the cold places (or visa versa, the process of equilibrating temperature is what causes work to occur). The deal is, that once temperatures between two distinctly different areas have equilibrated, they have the same average energy, however since there is no longer a difference in energy, that "equilibrated energy" is no longer availible to do work.


 * Here's where entropy comes in: Entropy is a measure of the difference between the state of seperated temperature and averaged temperature as described above. Basically, its a measure of the energy which still exists, but is no longer availible to do work.


 * Here's where time comes in: Since the entire universe started at a state of zero entropy (the big bang) and is tending towards a state of total entropy (heat death) the point along the line between those two states defines "time".  Assuming that one could define the exact total amount of entropy in the universe, that is equivalent to defining a single point in time.  Since the universe is constantly increasing its entropy, it is impossible to recreate any moment in the past (i.e. the universe will never exist in the exact same state it exists in now) so time can be said to be moving in one direction only.


 * Our concept of time is largely an artifact of how our minds organize events; from the universe's point of view, its merely just gradually averageing out its energy, and when we talk about an event ocurring at a certain point in time, we are merely saying that the event occured when the universe had an entropy = XXXX --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you are using the ever increasing entropy of the universe to define time. Some problems come to mind:


 * * Isn't your definition kind of recursive; don't we need a flow of time in the first place in order for the entropy of a system to increase? Or as you put it "... once temperatures between two distinctly different areas have equilibrated ...". We need time in the first place in order for this to happen.


 * * Science of Physics has already established a good idea of how time works that is widely accepted as science and no longer philosophy. Take Einsteins Theory of Relativity for example. Among many things, it states that the faster we move the slower time goes. Also, the closer we are to a body of mass, the slower time goes because of the body's gravity field. Your definition of time based on entropy fails to explain such phenomenons.


 * * There are theories saying that the universe is already in a state of very high entropy. The reason to why we see so many organized systems (galaxies, stars, planets, ecosystems) is that we are observing a temporary (20 billion years...) fluctuation in the otherwise state of high entropy. If this is true then the entropy of a part of a system can temporarily decrease, thus nullifying your theory that time can be defined on the amount of entropy in the universe because it always increases until it reaches "end of time" (dead heath).


 * Just thoughts... PureRumble (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to answer the Einsteinian Relativity problem; there's no contradiction. Any objects personal relationship with the state of entropy in the universe is dependent on one's one velocity relative to other objects in that universe.  Two objects moving at different relative velocity would meaure the rates of increase of entropy differently.  That is, if I am moving faster than you, I am going to observe the entropy increasing faster than you will.  I will see energy transfers happening at a faster rate than you will.  Again, no need to introduce "time" into the equation... Time is a convenient analog for "rate of entropic increase of the universe", and one that as humans, we find a lot of psychological comfort in, but from a physical standpoint, the two concepts are indistinguishable... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you seen our article, Arrow of time? That should answer at least some of your questions (feel free to come back with any it doesn't). --Tango (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about materialism and idealism. But the passage you quoted from the materialism article sounds more like a badly written opinion piece than an encyclopedia article.
 * The universe didn't start in a state of zero entropy. Shortly after the big bang it was a uniform plasma of elementary particles, which most people would identify as a state of maximum entropy. Since then the matter has clumped together, which most people would identify as a reduction in the entropy. You can save the Second Law by introducing a concept of gravitational entropy, which was very low shortly after the big bang (when the spatial curvature was nearly zero everywhere) and has increased enough since then to counter the decrease from the clumping. But the fact remains that the Second Law is not a simple matter of things becoming more uniform. Things have become less uniform since the big bang.
 * People don't measure time by increases in entropy, they measure time by periodic motion—originally the day-night cycle and the cycle of seasons and the phases of the moon, these days by a cesium oscillator. These systems are subject to the Second Law, but it's not their entropic behavior that makes them useful for timekeeping. Even at zero temperature (the ground state), every quantum mechanical system has a periodic motion (because of the uncertainty principle) that defines a time scale.
 * On the other hand, the human perception of the passage of time is related to the second law. We feel that time is passing because we remember past events. The Second Law is the only law of physics that isn't time-reversal symmetric (except for some obscure high-energy phenomena), so it must be implicated in any process that happens more often in one direction than the other. The formation of memories is one example of that. The mixing of unlike gases is another. The separation of oil and water is another. The trend toward increasing complexity in biological evolution is another (all multicellular organisms have unicellular ancestors, most unicellular organisms don't have multicellular ancestors). So is adaptation (species become better adapted to their niche over time, not worse). So is speciation (the genotypes of isolated populations drift apart, they don't drift together). The Second Law is far more than a statement that hot flows toward cold and clocks run down and everybody dies. It creates as much as it destroys. A universe without the Second Law would be unrecognizable.
 * I don't think special relativity has anything to do with it. All that you lose in special relativity is distant simultaneity (the idea that something happening here can be said to happen "at the same time" as something over there). Special relativity doesn't do anything to the notion of cause and effect; everything that happens to you (or any physical object) is still strictly ordered from past to future. This can hardly be said to "provide substantial evidence against the existence of a physical flow of time".
 * -- BenRG (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx all! 14:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)