Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 19

= December 19 =

uk law.....a need to inccrease sentences.
I feel strongly that uk prison sentences are too weak. I wish to lobby for increased sentences. How do i go about this,who do I approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.209.162 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be your Member of Parliament? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the standard method to express your opinion of matters of government policy is to write to your MP. You can find their address here. Unless a lot of people write to their MPs about something like this, not much will happen, but you will probably get a personal reply from your MP. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also want to do some research into how long average sentences actually are for certain crimes (be sure to look at how long people are actually serving, not just the minimum time set by the judge before there is a chance they could be let out). It's always good to check that you are arguing from a position of knowing the current situation, and I know many news sources in the UK report the minimum set by the judge as if this is the sentence that will be served. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also want to figure out how these prisoners are going to be housed, since overcrowding is already a major problem.--Shantavira|feed me 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And indeed just how you are going to pay for it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And indeed if this serves any useful purpose at all, and if it does, if the resources spent to achieve it could achieve more if used differently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, they've already come up with a solution for the overcrowding in UK jails. I am a product of this solution.  You wouldn't want more like me, would you?  No, I thought not.   :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the USA invade and capture Canada?
Considering the history of man and war consisted of invading and conquering other people's territory, whether it was ethical or not, what is stopping USA from conquering Canada? Surely US would win easily, so why not? 192.12.88.10 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They tried and failed already. They learned their lesson! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The US has a fairly strong and friendly alliance with Canada. There is nothing that the US would gain by conquering Canada. NW ( Talk ) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. This holds true for countries as well.  Think about the consequences.  The US would be pissing off nearly every NATO nation and quite a few from the UN as well.  They'd loose friends quickly!  Thousands of people would die on both sides.  And really, what would be gained?  They have a strong relationship with one another.  If the US is going to invade a neighbor, they should invade Mexico.  There'd be a much smaller illegal immigrant problem and the border to the next two countries would be quite a bit smaller than the current US-Mexico border.  Dismas |(talk) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Germans won easily against the Poles in 1939, but that didn't make it a good long-term strategic conquest for the country. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The U.S. doesn't invade Canada for the same reason people don't go punching random people in the face without provocation. Ok, SOME people do that, and we call them assholes.  -- Jayron  32  03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After the War of 1812, the protection of Canada by the world's greatest superpower of the time, Britain, deterred any U.S. invasion until the 20th century. By that time, the United States had friendly relations with Canada and enough goodwill in Canada for profitable commercial access.  Since the early 20th century, the United States would have had nothing to gain from invasion that it couldn't have through commerce, especially since the conclusion of NAFTA.  On the contrary, the Unites States would have a great deal to lose from invasion by destroying the goodwill among Canadians that is the best safeguard of U.S. (elite) interests. Marco polo (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x4) In addition to the excellent reasons of policy just stated: No one doubts that the U.S. would win in the end, especially given the relative sizes of the U.S. and Canadian Forces, but the cost to the U.S. would be incalculable. The military rules of thumb are that an invader needs a ratio of about 10 to 1 over the defender, and (from experience in the Third Balkan War and Iraq) about 1 occupier for every 30 hostile or indifferent inhabitants, i.e. about a million G.I.'s. It's hard to think of an incentive or a provocation, that couldn't be satisfied in some other way, which would justify the loss of life and wealth. And while the lowlands by the U.S. border would be relatively easy to take, the Canadian back-country, like Russia's, is physically hostile and essentially limitless. You could kiss goodbye to most of Alaska's perpetually-vulnerable oil and natural gas. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Who wants to face insurgents wielding hockey sticks and tossing curling stones, not to mention a potential disruptions to the US's vital beer supply ? StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there some menace based there? Is there something valuable there? Would the benefits of such aggression outweigh the goodwill lost? Edison (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Satan and Saddam would take over the world of course. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (After the US President makes an emergency landing in Canada...)


 * Bush: "Canada, isn't that one of our northern states ?"


 * Aide: "No sir, we aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until 2010, sir." - Chilly Beach. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can think of several things Canada has that the U.S. wouldn't want, and would be stuck with if we invaded. Draft dodgers. The metric system. Socialism. Quebec. Canada might have an oil reserve, though, so stay tuned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They also have better beer than we do, but if we pissed them off they might stop making it. So I suggest an invasion would be a bad idea.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You guys drink our beer? I had no idea Americans liked, even. What brands to you drink? Canadian? Alexander Keiths?174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a number of LaBatt's cans on the side of my road while walking my dogs and every spring during Green Up Day. Dismas |(talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While Labatt is the third most popular import beer in the U.S. - it does not rank in the top ten beers (Corona and Heineken do though). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to get involved, but are you out of your mind?! Canada has awful beer. I suppose if you compare Labats to BudLight we've got an even split, but American craft brews are stellar, and I know of few good Canadian craft brews. Disagree if you will, but name names, if you dare. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of the Family Ties episode in which, to impress some girls, Alex P. Keaton tells them he is a fighter pilot on a mission to invade the Dominion of Canada in the morning. The irony is of course that  Michael J. Fox  is Canadian. So too William Shatner who plays Secret Service agent Jerry O'Connor in the 1980 film The Kidnapping of the President, who acts like a smart alec to all those in the RCMP, as if he only ever was a farmboy from Iowa ( or was he born in space as the recent movie said ) How fast they forget. Don't worry Canada, if those traitorous whigs try to have a go at you, your British brothers will unite - and probably run away. Actually, I think Iran is next, after Israel blows up its reactors. C.B.Lilly 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

¶ The only conceivable circumstance that might draw a foolish U.S. into a military expedition against Canada might be if Quebec declares independence and somehow stumbles into a shooting war over it. The Rest of Canada would be split into more than one piece, Albertans (like some Québécois) are always threatening to apply to join the U.S.A., some First Nations militants might see their chance, and it's unclear what kind of confusion would ensue. Perhaps the U.S. would want to rescue a tourist, aid worker, journalist, diplomat or spy (or kick out detain a Canadian one perhaps incommunicado for enhanced interrogation ), or take strong measures with a flood of refugees. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the Reference Desk is not supposed to be a forum for speculation or debate, and though fun it's no doubt best left to the alternative historians. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1920s and 1930s, the US drew up plans to invade Canada, and Canada drew up plans to invade the US. Neither plan was ever carried out.  See War Plan Red and Defence Scheme No. 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then they'd just have a larger territory to administrate, full of trees and tax evaders. 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, by mentioning the word tourist, you have gone and reminded me of the movie Canadian Bacon, where the late John Candy played a US sherriff, trying to rescue his  girl from those up north. Again, another forgetful Canadian. I did not realise the film was not released until nearly two years after his death. He was good. The relationship Canada has with its smaller in area but larger in population neighbour is similar to that between us in New Zealand and those over there in Australia. Too many of us have become rats leaving a sinking ship, to go to where it is too hot, and there are snakes. None here, and we don't want them. If I recall, Michael Jackson was not allowed in here once because he wanted to bring his. He did come some other time. I have that many aunts uncles and cousins over there, I cannot count them all. And my mother tells us one of her grandmothers was from over there, so I am one eighth ocker. Oy oy oy. I admire their sporting prowess. We get jealous over here, but it is because we have adopted that everyone wins and gets a prize mentality, which no one cared about when I was little. No one bothered to spare our feelings then if we were no good at sport - it was just motivation to get better, rather than allow us to be coddled. We need their competitive, non apologetic spirit. I suspect, Canadians may get jealous of Americans also, but why bother ? Who ever we are, let us embrace it, be proud, and do all we can, which does not include invading each other. I promise. If foreign troops ever dare set foot on New Zealand soil, and sure we may get overrun and occupied, but I will kill as many of them as I can until they put me in front of a firing squad, before I accept any foreign ruler. Irony is, most of our Prime Ministers have been English, and one of our best, Michael Joseph Savage ( whom my grandfather, who was in the Napier Earthquake, probably voted for ), was Australian. But if our rulers do not do us the courtesy to be democratically elected, they may consider themselves enemies of the Dominion of New Zealand. After all, the Bible does say there is a time for war. It's in Ecclesiastes - the Byrds turn turn turned it. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)


 * In the Harry Turtledove Timeline-191 books, the US does invade and conquer Canada, grants independence to Quebec as a puppet state, but has to live with an insurgency for many, many years. Utah is also pretty much a lost cause, as well.  Woogee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That last part may be true anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has mentioned the Fenian raids (though they had more to do with Irish nationalism)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not toss in the St. Albans Raid as a suitably recent casus belli? —— Shakescene (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any elementary school kid in Canada could tell you those were reasons for Confederation (well, theoretically they should be able to tell you, but I rather doubt that they would given the low standard of Canadian history education these days). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * there isn't all that much in Canada that the US really needs and don't already have in their own land, certainly not enough to make it worth all the bother. China long had a similar policy of not invading places because they were so sure there was nothing they could gain from the barbarian nations, at least nothing they couldn't get much easier by demanding tributary payments. And if the USA suddenly invaded some other country for no reason but conquest, the rest of the world might get a little annoyed. 80.47.90.109 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the flip side, why don't some US states secede and join Canada? Pfly (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Peru's my question
Specifically, why do they wear such an eclectic variety of hats there ? This doesn't seem to be the case in adjacent South American nations, so what's different about Peru ? If the answer is "tradition", then how did this tradition start ? StuRat (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give us an example of the hats you have on mind? Alpaca hats originate from the Incans, and peru occupies much of the Incan homeland.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "chullo hat" seems to be the most common, but I've seen many other types of hats there, too, like this one: and this one:, and this one: , and this one:  (a fedora ?), and this one:  (a bowler hat ?), and this one: , and this one: , and these 3: , and this one: , and this one: , and this one: , and these: , and this one: , and this one: , and these: , and this one: , and this one: , and this one: , and this one: , and this one: . StuRat (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't have an eclectic variety of hats in the U.S.? -- Jayron  32  05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just taking American men for an example, I don't really ever see older men in anything but either baseball caps or golf caps. In the cities you may see some youths wearing do-rags.  The only other hat I see on men on any sort of regular basis is just a knitted skull cap of sorts in the winter. So, no, I don't see any evidence of an eclectic variety in the US.  Dismas |(talk) 06:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely every man in Texas walks around with a Stetson on, or has tv weaved an elaborate web of lies? ny156uk (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, if we include the cowboy hat and throw in the do-rag, that's four. And to me, that's not a lot of variety.  I never see any fedoras anymore.  Dismas |(talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, Dismas, you don't live in a U.S. college town, somewhere with serious cold winter, attend the opera (or a African American church on Easter) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pork pie hat has become popular among singers in the US, particularly Justin Timberlake. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If he'd been wearing one in that Super Bowl halftime show, he could have used it to cover Janet Jackson a little more quickly than she covered herself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I think you'll find this diversity of hats in Bolivia as well as Peru. Second, I think that it is just a way that people in that culture region express fashion sense or individuality.  It is true that in the United States, though there is some regional and ethnosocial variation, within each U.S. subculture there is little variety in headgear among U.S. men.  That is because fashion sense is considered unmanly in the United States and because for those men who defy this cultural bias, fashion sense is usually more a matter of shoetips and the cut of one's clothing.  For U.S. women, I think you will find a little more variety in headgear, though, here again, there is a cultural bias against hats, not per se, but because they interfere with a woman's hairstyle, which is perhaps the signature expression of fashion sense and individuality for most U.S. women.  In Peru and Bolivia, it so happens that people use hats to express fashion sense and individuality.  This is not surprising, since hats are a near necessity in a region where the low latitude and high altitude (thin atmosphere) make the sun's rays dangerously strong, and where cold winds often blow.  Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it follows that the necessity for hats also means a large variety would be expected. And, if this was true, wouldn't countries like Chile also have such an eclectic mix ? StuRat (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Product
What is the short infomercial (infomercials are long, but such advertisements for the slap chop, sham-wow, etc. are about a min and half long, while infomercials are about a hour long) that airs before snuggie?

Usually products advertised this way come and go: these advertisements might run for a few months, then the ads stop. Which product is this?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to provide some context here. Where in the world are you? Which channel or network are you talking about? What is snuggie? What time of day do you usually see these?/Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It speaks well for you that you are "snuggie" illiterate. The "Snuggie" is a brand-name for a ubiquitously advertised blanket-with-sleeves that is worn instead of a robe - but which opens in the back, not the front. The advertisements (on U.S. cable-TV, at least) are fairly cheesy. I see we have a redirect for it, which I linked. But for the original questioner, I don't think the commercials air in general in any particular order, though an individual station may have such an order. But if we assume it's for a similary cheesy product, one can suggest: Shamwow!, Slap Chop, Chia pet. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I assumed it was the nickname of some show or series. Since the OP mentions sham-wow and slap chop as examples of the type of short informercial, I guess none of those are the answer. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They're selling Snuggies for dogs, now. Woogee (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I can't really be specific about the channels where I watch these infomercials. Here is snuggie.174.3.102.6 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the hostility? Why so much cheese?174.3.102.6 (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How many Southeast Asians in India?
How many southeast asians such as Burmese(Bamar people), Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese and others are living in India? Which Indian regions are they living in? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Burmese (in the sense, people coming from Burma. belongs to various different ethnic groups) refugees are quite numerous in the states bordering Burma. Otherwise SE Asian populations would be rather scarse in India. In major cities you could find Vietnamese or Thai restaurants, though. --Soman (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Soman, there are many Indians in Southeast Asia. India is a booming economy. So why would there be Indians only in Southeast Asia and not the other way around? There are southeast asians in India, but I don't know how many there are. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actuarial data determination
In general, how do they begin to say what a finger, arm, ear, etc., is worth? 71.161.42.92 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean for compensation for losing a finger, etc., due to someone's negligence? That's not really an actuarial decision. It's made by the legal profession. I don't know how lawyers work these things out - it's pretty arbitrary, I think. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and this document for the position in the UK. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking someone how much they'd want for an arm would likely generate a different value than what someone would pay to not lose an arm.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)