Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 8

= October 8 =

Opinions
After looking up what an opinion is on Wikipedia. It made me greatly saddened that there was no truth to our personal judgments, beliefs, and thoughts. Why personally, do you live knowing that we cannot penetrate the system of nature in truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the mysteries of life and death are ultimately unknowable, I go on living because sometimes I get pie. —Kevin Myers 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there was no truth whatsoever in your personal judgements, beliefs and thoughts then you might have difficulty in continuing to live. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Christian, I have faith in the one who does know the unknowable, and that He (Jesus Christ) lives in me. So, faith plays a large part in how some poeple can live.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is absolutely wrong to say that there is no truth to judgments, beliefs, thoughts. There are certainly beliefs with more truth than others. The fundamental epistemological issue is not so much whether truth is out there (which seems hard to avoid), but whether we do know it or can know it. --140.247.11.23 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My body continues to live despite my belief that this life is all that there is and that there is no God. I see no scientific reason why I should suddenly die because of my beliefs and in fact I'm very happy to continue living this way. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No finite mind can know the full truth, but we can incrementally improve our understanding and take pleasure in doing so. Being animals, though, most of us have drives other than an all-consuming hunger for truth. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zhuang people
I'm curious: How assimilated are these folks into the Chinese national fabric? (Are they anywhere near as assimilated as Manchu and Han?) It would be great if responders could note the extend of their Chinese studies/living experience. Lotsofissues (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5000 years ago. Because of their long history in China, many Zhuang are assimilated with other Chinese groups in these urban areas.

2008 Thai political crisis
Okay, so some Thai people are protesting for less elected members of parliament and more appointed members. Do they "hate freedom" or something? 118.90.128.113 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, basically, they (once known as the People's Alliance for Democracy, good Orwellian name) hate democracy, because they are (relatively) wealthy elites from the cities and military people who don't want the majority of poor farmers to have a lot of influence on how they run the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Swaziland's Territory Claims
In recent years we have seen Swaziland claiming some Territory from the Republic of South Africa and that the latter must give back the claimed territories so I want to know how far has Swaziland go in claiming the territories what measures are taken by Swaziland and if it can be possible to get the claimed land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikodze (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, Swaziland is weaker in almost every respect than South Africa... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Our Swaziland article doesn't seem to mention this matter? Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Disputed territories, in the section In Africa and neighbouring seas states that both South Africa and Swaziland claim the territory of 'Kangawane Swazi homelands in parts of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu Natal', which is currently under the control of South Africa. However, none of these articles except Disputed territories mention Swazilad's claim to the area. --JoeTalkWork 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun
I am confused. Are the Pashtun people of Pakistan are really Pashto-speaking Pakistanis or Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are both Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pashtuns from Pakistan living in Pakistan -- but some Pashtuns think it would be a lot better to have a separate Pakhtunistan in place of the current Pakistan-Afghanistan border... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This situation isn't unusual, of course, and there are large numbers of such national minorities almost everywhere you look. The modern state of India has about 1,500 different languages within its borders. Most of the borders of Asia, as with the rest of the world, have been decided by conquest and/or by the convenience of colonial powers pulling out, only a very few by the wish for self-determination shown by indigenous people united by speaking a particular language. Strawless (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Baloch sindhi film industry
There is no Baloch or Sindhi film industry in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. List of Sindhi-language films and this google search should help. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cults
I have a question about cults that has been puzzling me for a long time. I have read the article on cults and it's very informative but I still have some doubts. See cults may happen to be initiated by or grown around a single personality but they often continue after the founder is gone, the leadership taken by some other member. Now this new member also joined the group at some time, no doubt believing in the legitimacy of the cult's basic tenets. Now assuming we are talking about real "cults" (the kind that mislead people), how long does it take for a new member to be "in on the secret", and thus be in a position to run the cult? Secondly, why does he/she do it, why don't they just spill the beans... what motivates members to perpetuate the fraud? Take the case of scientology, Ron Hubbard may have started it out of whatever motivation, but how many of the group (obviously top of the hierarchy) know what the real deal is, when did they come to know about it, and why did they chose to perpetuate the myth? The question is why, how, and why do the "preys" (ones that were taken in by the chincanery) become the "predators" (that is ones who run the whole thing and attract new converts). Thank you very much. -- ReluctantPhilosopher(talk)
 * The people who lead a cult after the death of the founder may well be true believers, even to the point of being martyrs for the cause, rather than the cynical con men you posit, who share the "secret" that it is a scam. Some cults really get going only after the founder is dead, and are spread by people who never met him. Edison (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My question is about the cynical con men who share the secret. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only God knows the difference.--Wetman (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If those who take over are cynical con men or woman (and please note the "If"; I take no position on this), then, as with con men and woman in every field, the cult is merely the background or environment in which they operate their scam. A scam is a scam -in the boardroom, the church, a living room, a club. What the con person gets out of any one of them is a mix of personal power and prestige, along with worldy goods, all to feed a massive ego. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Stepping into it with both feet.  See Paul the Apostle.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

what makes a new edition of a book?
What constitutes a new edition of a book? We are discussing this at talk:Basic Chess Endings. The hardback book came out in 1941, and it was reprinted at least as late as 1960. Some of them had "second edition" and "fourth edition" although there was no change at all to the text. (I consider these reprints, not new editions.) Starting about 1969 to 1971 paperback copies were printed with exactly the same text. At least ten paperback printings were done. So if the text has not changed, can it be a new edition? (The book was revised in 2003.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The (dictionary) meaning seems to stem from printing. An "impression" is "one of a number of printings made at different times from the same set of type, without alteration (distinguished from edition)", whereas an "edition" is "one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.".  So, by that definition, it's a different edition if they substantially have to re-set the type.  For example a big-print version is a "big print edition", even if the text is identical with its regular-type cousin.  So changing the font, changing the chess diagrams to a different style, or adding a different prolog would make it a different  edition, as would a revision of the text.  I guess small fixes for typos and fixing printing snafus would be added between impressions without counting as an edition. Now whether the dictionary meaning really relates to a reasonable expectation that a modern consumer might have, that a new edition is a change so great that buying the book again might well be worthwhile, as another matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. From the original publication in 1941 until the revision in 2003, the only thing that changed was hardcover to softcover, the cover, and the page that gives the copyright, the revision date, the printing number, and the ISBN.  So in my mind, these were all the same edition.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the ISBN. To normal people an ISBN is just a dumb number than you use to order a book at the library.  To people in publishing land an ISBN is a magic key that makes book projects live (publishing projects spring into life when someone orders the ISBN, ISBN is the billing code that everyone uses to bill each other during prepress, and of course ISBN is what everyone calls a book when ordering it).  So if you're a publisher and you want to get someone to print a book for you, they probably want you to give them an ISBN for it ('cos their systems all work off ISBNs).  If you're publishing an old book (from the ancient times before ISBN) then you order an ISBN for it and that's what you have them print it under.  But now there's one (or more) kinds of the book hanging around in the world that don't have that ISBN, and your new one that does.  As you can't go back and write an ISBN on all those extant copies, I guess you call the new one "2nd edition", just to differentiate it.  But that doesn't seem to explain your BCE problem, as it has different versions (which may, but probably aren't, editions) some with ISBNs and some without. Perhaps "edition" for this case isn't going to help disambiguate, and if you want to refer to a specific version you need to do so by printing too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A self-publishing service Lulu has the following criteria: If you make the following types of major changes, it is considered a new edition:

MaxVT (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding, removing or moving text
 * Adding or removing chapters or an index
 * Changing the sequence of chapters
 * Dramatically changing your cover design


 * In this case, none of that happened except changing the cover design. My hardback copy doesn't have a dust jacket, and I don't know what the dust jacket looked like.  Then there were at least three versions of the paperback version cover before the 2003 revision.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From a copyright point of view, if the content does not significantly change then it is not a derivative work but just a copy of the original work, and does not generate a new copyright. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Electoral College
To Whom it May Concern

I heard the following and would like to know if it is indeed factual:

With regards to the Electoral College, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant.

Now, I know that in 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral while losing the ‘popular’ vote, but neither candidate had a majority as Ralph Nader had several million votes. My question is can a candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote, or the majority of the popular vote, lose the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.105.156 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is even possible (though won't happen) that a candidate can receive zero votes from the people but still win the election.  There is no Federal requirement that electoral votes be based on the votes of the people.  I feel that I should also point out that there is no such thing as the "popular vote."  People are not voting for a Presidential candidate.  They are voting for an elector who will cast a vote for a Presidential candidate.  So, if I vote a South Carolina elector and you vote for a Missouri elector, we are voting for two different people even though our electors may be voting for the same candidate. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What I understand from that is that the only vote that really matters is the electoral college vote; hence, if any vote is "irrelevant", it's the popular vote. Wouldn't the answer therefore be "No", rather than "Yes"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, a candidate may have more than 50% of the population vote for an elector that is sworn to vote for that candidate and still lose the election by not having enough electors to win the election. Depending on the state, the number of people per elector is different.  In heavily populated states, you get more people per elector.  In less populated states, there are less people per elector.  That is why there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between people's votes and elector's votes. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The electoral college is composed of the electors chosed by each state who convene together to themselves choose the president. Now, the U.S. Constitution leaves it up to each state as to how that state chooses its electors.  It would be perfectly legal, for example, for all of the electors to simply be appointed by the governor, with no voting at all done by the people.  Popular elections are only required in order to elect members of the House (in the original Constitution) and the Senate (since the 17th ammendment in 1913).  The constitution does require that all states vote for national offices and for electors on the same day, but such a requirement could still be carried out such that the Governor of the state would announce the slate of electors on Election day, without any attempt at a popular election.  The fact that every state holds popular elections to determine how their electors are appointed is a de facto reality, but it is not in any way required by law at the Federal level.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Furthermore, it's happened. In the United States presidential election, 1876, Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden received 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost to Republican Rutherford Birchard Hayes (47.9%) in the electoral college, 184 to 185. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1876 was a special case because in at least 2 states, there were disputed returns; much like Florida in 2000. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme court who abdicated responsibility, and appointed a 5 member commission to decide the fate of the election.  The commission ended up 3-2 republican, so the gave the disputed electors to Hayes, the republican.  The election could have easily gone the other way.  As other examples, there have been other cases of elections where there were some electoral college problems:
 * In United States presidential election, 1800, under very different election rules, there was a dead tie for the presidency between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, so it went to the House of Reps to choose. It took 36 ballots and a deal brokered by Alexander Hamilton to decide in favor of Jefferson over Burr. Burr would later famously shoot Hamilton over the issue.  As far as popular vote, most states didn't hold a popular election to decide electors, and they were merely appointed by state legislatures, so it is impossible to say who got the most popular votes.  As a result, the electoral college was reorganized under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 * In United States presidential election, 1824 four candidates split the vote, with Andrew Jackson holding a plurality, but not the 50+% majority of all electoral votes needed to win. The decision then went to the House of Reps again.  Under the rules of the constitution, only the top 3 candidates get to be voted on by the house.  The fourth place candidate, Henry Clay, hated Jackson and used his influence as speaker of the House to give the election to Adams, who had neither a plurality of the electoral college votes nor of the popular vote (at least in those states that held a popular vote.  Several in 1824 still left it to the legislatures to appoint the electors).
 * In United States presidential election, 1960, was a very confusing one from an electoral college standing. Kennedy carried 22 states to Nixon's 26 states, and only won the popular vote by less than a tenth of a percent, and had only a 49.7% plurality of the popular vote.  However, Kennedy carried all of the "big states" except for Nixon's home state of California.  The election is noted for allegations of widespread voter fraud, as the close race in Illinois was largely decided by Chicago, whose mayor Richard Daley was a staunch Democrat.  Also, several Democratic party electors pledged to Kennedy refused to vote for a northerner, and instead cast their ballots for Harry Byrd.
 * Like 1960, the United States presidential election, 1888 neither candidate had a majority of the votes, though Grover Cleveland had the clear plurality over Benjamin Harrison, (0.8% advantage) in the popular vote, Harrison won more electoral college votes. As a quirk, Cleveland, who won every state south of the Mason Dixon, didn't even win his home state of New York.
 * Just some food for thought heading into the 2008 election... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The state legislature could appoint anyone to appoint the electors, or they could order a coin toss, or drawing for high card, or a foot race, or any other means to decide whose slate of electors gets to cast the state's electoral votes. They just have to establish a process then follow it. Edison (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread probably isn't being monitored by the OP anymore, but I did stumble across this site and thought it was relevant to the discussion. GreatManTheory (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Senators Obama and McCain, after the election
If Obama wins, will McCain still be a Senator? If McCain wins, will Obama still be a Senator? If so to both, for whichever becomes President, who will take their Senate seat? --140.247.249.14 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Losing a Presidential election does not eject you from the Senate. Becoming President does.  The state will hold a special election to elect a new Senator (similar to what would happen if a Senator left office for any other reason).  This makes me think... Which one do you want as President just walking around and giving speeches and which one do you want in the Senate writing and passing laws? --  k a i n a w &trade; 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, John F. Kennedy was elected president in November 1960, then resigned his Senate seat on December 22. Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo appointed Benjamin A. Smith II to serve in his place, until the next possible election, when JFK's brother Ted Kennedy was elected.
 * The 17th Amendment allows the governor to fill an opening until an election.  Grsz  X  20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that a senator/representative who wins the presidency must resign before 20 January in order to be eligible to be sworn in. But can they be forced to resign?  If Obama wins, say, then changes his mind about the presidency and chooses not to resign as a senator, what would happen?  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading the constitution literally, I think he stops being a senator. There is provision for the resignation of a president (originally in Article II, Section 1, now in the 25th Amendment), but not for a president-elect. The articles about electing a president via the electoral college (also originally II.1, now in the 12th Amendment) say that the candidate winning the electoral vote "shall be the president", and if the election goes to the House of Representatives, then they "shall choose the president".

But Article I, Section 6, requires that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." If he's required to become president, but he's also required not to be both a senator and the president, then it logically follows that his term as senator is terminated.


 * (And before someone says "what if he refused to take the presidential oath of office" -- that would not stop someone from becoming president; it would just mean that he couldn't exercise his powers of office. The requirement for an oath or affirmation (also in II.1) specifically relates to "the Execution of his Office", not to becoming president.  One president, in an era where it was not feared that a war could arise in a matter of minutes, preferred not to take the oath on a Sunday, so he just waited until Monday.)


 * But the US has a long history of interpreting their constitution in ways other than reading what it literally says, which means that we won't ever know for sure unless this situation actually happens and any resulting legal cases have been settled. And of course we cannot give legal advice here, so if the original poster is Obama or McCain, he therefore had better ignore this thread altogether.  --Anonymous, 22:30 UTC, edited 22:41, October 8, 2008.


 * That's very enlightening, Anon. If the termination of their service as a senator occurs automatically, why don't they just let that process take its course rather than actively resigning?  Is it because they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and the Congress some time before they take on the president's job?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One very good reason to resign: seniority. A new congressman / senator who takes office a day before another new legislator has seniority, and that often makes a difference in things like committee membership and leadership. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, President of the US wasn't a ceremonial position. They do far more than give speeches - they can veto the laws passed by congress, for a start. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is also the President's job to take the blame for all the laws passed by Congress.  Seriously, the President is not powerless.  He is simply the least powerful of the three branches of government - as expressed in many Presidential memoirs. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The recent goings on have reminded me that, while the President can veto laws he doesn't like, he cannot insist on laws he does want coming into force. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which, amusingly enough, means that the vast majority of campaign speeches are essentially pointless- the federal government has no control over education, anyway, so that's out, the President can't directly influence laws, so any of his/her policies on the economy/oil/whatever are also out... pretty much the only thing the candidates are arguing on that they might actually be able to do something about is the Iraq war, because the President is commander-in-chief. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC with above)The President is VERY powerful, if you consider that he has great leeway and control over appointments of the entire adminsitrative structure of the government, from the Justice department to State Department to the Joint Chiefs. He's essentially the CEO of the gigantic bureaucracy, and he has considerable power over how that bureaucracy operates. Congress may pass laws, but the executive puts them into action as it sees fit, and that is considerable power. The current administration even believes it has the power to ignore sections of laws it just doesn't like or to fire civil servants for not toeing the party line. Insofar as no other part of the government has made any attempt to curb this power, the President has it... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to Alinnisawest). Actually, the federal government has considerable power over just about any part of the nation that it wants to, via Power of the purse. Basically, our government already partially funds everything that the states do, from education to road construction, and while it cannot change laws of states, it can refuse to provide federal money to states that don't pass the laws that it wants. For all intents and purposes, that means that it can do whatever it wants with regard to passing laws.

While its power may be theoretically limited via the Constitution, it can, for example, withhold federal money for highway construction if states refuse to abide by a national speedlimit (it actually did this in the 1970's) or it can refuse to provide federal money for schools that do not meet arbitrary testing standards (No Child Left Behind legislation under the current administration) even though BOTH of these provisions are techinically left entirely for the states to decide for themselves. States could defy the federal government, but it would be financial suicide to do so, as states need this federal funding to operate. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard it said (that most quoted of sources!) that the Federal strings cost more than the cash to which they're attached, but any State legislator who gets serious about declining the deal is leaned on hard by the national parties. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I expect that circumstances might occur under which a candidate "wins" but does not become President. The electoral vote totals might not be certified, due to objections and obstructionism in the Joint Session of Congress where the votes are counted. One might say thet he is not "elected" until the January 6 Joint Session says he is, but the opinion of the public and historians might be that a majority of electoral votes where in fact cast for him, meaning that he was "elected" for all purposes except for the actions of Congress. There are scenarios where the Senate elects a Vice President but the House is deadlocked and does not elect a President. The Senator in question might choose to remain in his Senate seat if there was no prospect for the House electing him or the Joint Session confirming the actions of the Electoral College. Edison (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I just read that the executive branch is the least powerful. Just, wow.  See Imperial Presidency, or alternatively, the last eight years.  --Sean 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Much of the federal government flows from the power of the executive (appointments, etc.—Michael D. Brown, anyone?), and the executive is in charge of nominating candidates to many aspects of the judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court). Congress has oversight over some of this but the power to nominate already balances things towards the executive. All of this ignores even more overt forms of power like Executive Orders. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The President can appoint people to various positions in government (ie: the Supreme Court), but Congress has to allow it. Unlike the Presidential veto, if Congress says "no", it is a solid "no."  The President cannot override it.  You will have cases where Congress opts to not decide - which is nothing more than a very passive aggressive way of deciding "yes."  The President is also the Commander in Chief, but Congress holds the money.  Could Bush have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without cash?  Of course not.  Congress allowed the invasions by voting to pay for them.  Again, Congress has the power to say "no" to the President and the President is powerless to override it.  When it comes to Executive Orders, Congress can come in again and impeach the President (or just give him a big raspberry) if they don't like it.  They can even pass a law to make the actions of the executive order illegal - putting a stop to it.  The President can veto the law, but Congress can override the veto and have the last word.  When it really comes down to it, Congress has the ability to say "no" to the President and the President has to work hard at weaselling a way to get what he wants.  The President can veto Congress, but Congress can easily override the veto if they want to.  What really bugs me about all of this is that even if you consider the balance of power to be 50/50 (which it is clear I do not), why do we spend 99.9999999% of the time debating the Presidential election and ignore the Congressional elections?  We don't even have signs or commercials for my local Congressional elections.  Most people I know don't even know who our Senators/Representatives are -- and they wonder how this state kept reelecting Thurmond until he petrified. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the President can keep nominating people he or she wants until the end of time. Congress never get to nominate. That's a lot of power right there. Congress can say no. When it does so there is often a lot of controversy. It's harder for them to say no than it is to say yes, and the President still gets to pick the people they have to say yes or no to. I'd say the Executive still wields most of the power there, even if Congress does have some oversight. Ditto with power of the purse—yes, it's true that Congress has the power to not fund wars, but they do so at their own political peril (and even then Presidents have found ways to fund activities that Congress has explicitly prohibited them from doing—e.g. Iran-Contra).
 * As for Congressional elections.. it depends where you are. Some places are such strongholds for one party or the other than without some sort of major event or upheaval there's really no pressure to run a hard popular campaign. In some places they are heavily, heavily debated. And of course in some places there aren't even elections this term. In the case of South Carolina, the likelihood of a Democrat winning is so low as to make it not worth the time to campaign heavily, I'd imagine. The national party no doubt feels the efforts and resources in this regard should be concentrated on closer elections. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of the (ahem, ridiculous) seniority rules of the Senate, the earlier the respective governor appoints a replacement the more earmarks the state will get. Saintrain (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If a president nominates an evil doofus for the Supreme Court, and the Senate refuses to confirm, as soon as the Senate recesses, the President could appoint him/her as a "recess appointment" and they would serve until the end of the next session of the Senate. G.W. Bush appointed by a recess appointments 2 federal judges, a U.N. ambassador, an ambassador to Belgium, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a Deputy Director of Social Security, who would likely not have been approved by the Senate. The Senate has recently prevented aditional recess appointments by Bush by having "pro forma" sessions every couple of days with a few Senators present, so the Senate never  formally recesses. In the last year of the Continental Congress, there were similar pro forma sessions, for no obvious reason, where one or two members were present. Edison (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese reform
Do we have an article for a PRC equivalent of Demokratizatsiya?  Grsz  X  22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a direct equivalent, but Gaige Kaifang (reform and opening up) is one of the primary policies of the new post-Mao China. The article says it's more like perestroika. A direct translation of demokratizatsiya is 民主主义化 minzhuzhuyihua, but it doesn't seem to be a common word. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon
what type of people did napolean have in his army? (ex: cooks, tailors, blacksmiths etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.116.227 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see our article on Napoleon's Grande Armée, which contains a lot of good information on these lines. I am not sure if its exactly what you are looking for, but there's lots of good info there. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean what type of people by occupation, then we can almost say that the answer is "every type". The Emperor's famous comment Une armée marche à son estomac ("An army marches on its stomach") shows his attention to logistical planning. Strawless (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)