Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 2

= December 2 =

Borough vs County constituencies
Does anyone know the party breakdown for borough and county constituencies in the United Kingdom. I think it would be interesting to see how much Labour dominate the more urbanised borough constituencies and the Tories in the county constituencies. Sam 12:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Not sure exactly but Local government in England may be of use? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or a map like this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A map like that, but NOT THAT MAP! That's a map for elections to the UK parliament not borough and county council elections!
 * If you want results for individual constituencies for local government elections, you'll probably have to turn to individual council websites or local papers. United Kingdom local elections, 2009 has a map showing all 27 county councils, and results for borough and other council elections can be found yearly on the BBC though they don't combine them with areas where there's no election that year. Elections in the United Kingdom has more general info.
 * Note that counties, which are mostly rural, are divided into boroughs, which are therefore also mostly rural, while urban areas tend to have unitary authorities, except for London boroughs which are subdivisions of the Greater London Authority area. So maybe you really want to compare unitary authorities with counties? --Pleasantman (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to SHOUT!! - the original question could be interpreted in several ways. Thank you.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Counties are divided into districts; some of these have borough status, but many do not. Warofdreams talk 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my apologies, I don't seem to have been very clear. I did mean parliamentary constituencies, which are classified as either 'borough (burgh in Scotland) constituencies' and 'county constituencies'. The former tend to be rural while the latter are in urban areas. [|Explained here] I think it would be interesting to see how the Tories dominate the county parliamentary constituencies, and Labour the borough ones. Thanks for your help guys. Sam 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)


 * From the first House of Commons in 1265 to the Reform Acts of the 19th century, I seem to recall (although not directly!) that each county elected two members ("knights of the shire"), and each city or large urban borough also elected two, with smaller boroughs electing only one. If it's of any interest to you, my reprint of the 1900 Whitaker's Almanack shows the election of 1895 returned 377 members from British & Irish counties, 284 from boroughs, and 9 from University seats. They divided into 411 for Lord Salisbury's ministry (340 Tories + 71 Liberal Unionists) and 259 in Opposition (177 Liberals and 82 Irish nationalists, sharing a dozen Labour men between them). In the Oldham bye-election of 1898, Walter Runciman and another Liberal defeated Winston L.S. Churchill and another Conservative. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of representatives wasn't quite as simple as that. You can see the numbers here.  Most English boroughs, all English and Irish counties, plus Dublin and the university constituencies elected two members; Welsh and Scottish counties, Welsh boroughs, Scottish burghs, all Irish boroughs except Dublin and a handful of English boroughs elected one member; London and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis elected four members.  Starting with the Reform Act 1832, a number of reforms were carried out to more closely fit the allocation of seats to the distribution of population (see List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832); some counties were divided and others given an extra member, while various boroughs were disenfranchised or created. Warofdreams talk 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this or this. Any good? A bit of a clue - urban constuencies are a lot smaller than rural ones! Don't forget that it will all change in a few months' time. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick calculation reveals that the statistics since 1997 are as follows. This is a rough calculation so don't shoot me if it's out by a few but it should be enough to go on with.


 * 1997: London boroughs: Lab 57, C 11, L Dem 6. English boroughs: Lab 160, C 18, L Dem 7. Welsh boroughs: Lab 6. Scottish burghs: Lab 27, L Dem 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UU 2, SF 1, UDUP 1. Total Lab 250, C 29, L Dem 14, UU 2, SF 1, UDUP 1 in the 297 borough/burgh constituencies.
 * 1997: English counties: C 136, Lab 112, L Dem 21, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 28, PC 4, L Dem 2. Scottish counties: Lab 29, L Dem 9, SNP 6. Northern Irish counties: UU 8, SDLP 3, SF 1, UDUP 1, UKUP 1. Total Lab 169, C 136, L Dem 32, UU 8, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3, Ind 1, SF 1, UDUP 1, UKUP 1 in the 362 county constituencies.


 * 2001: London boroughs: Lab 55, C 13, L Dem 6. English boroughs: Lab 158, C 18, L Dem 9. Welsh boroughs: Lab 6. Scottish burghs: Lab 27, L Dem 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 2, SF 1, UU 1. Total Lab 246, C 31, L Dem 16, UDUP 2, SF 1, UU 1 in the 297 borough/burgh constituencies.
 * 2001: English counties: C 134, Lab 110, L Dem 25, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 28, PC 4, L Dem 2. Scottish counties: Lab 29, L Dem 9, SNP 5, C 1. Northern Irish counties: UU 5, SDLP 3, SF 3, UDUP 3. Total Lab 167, C 135, L Dem 36, SNP 5, UU 5, PC 4, SDLP 3, SF 3, UDUP 3, Ind 1 in the 362 county constituencies.


 * 2005: London boroughs: Lab 44, C 21, L Dem 8, RU 1. English boroughs: Lab 152, C 20, L Dem 13. Welsh boroughs: Lab 5, L Dem 1. Scottish burghs: Lab 17, L Dem 1, SNP 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 2, SDLP 1, SF 1. Total Lab 218, C 41, L Dem 23, UDUP 2, RU 1, SDLP 1, SF 1, SNP 1 in the 288 borough/burgh constituencies.
 * 2005: English counties: C 153, Lab 92, L Dem 24, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 24, C 3, L Dem 3, PC 3, Ind 1. Scottish counties: Lab 24, L Dem 10, SNP 5, C 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 7, SF 4, SDLP 2, UU 1. Total: C 157, Lab 140, L Dem 37, UDUP 7, SNP 5, SF 4, PC 3, Ind 2, SDLP 2, UU 1 in 358 county constituencies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they or didn't They ?
Last night I was watching a programme in which one of the characters suggested that Jackson Pollock once had some sort of fight or duel with Ernest Hemingway. Based on what I have learned of Pollock in particular, that sounds plausible. Now I cannot remember which programme it was on, nor do the articles here on both men have anything about it. Is it true, seeing they were contemporaries? The Russian.C.B.Lilly 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

SCi Fi Book involving unaware humans
Someone told me about a sci-fi book which was in a dystopian future and the world was going to end (?) and that the only saviors were humans that were unaware that they had some sort of special powers and that these would be "activated" when the moment was needed. But I forgot the title and the author. Does anyone know? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke comes to mind, although it was a near-future setting so maybe doesn't quality. But the page on the book has a section discussing other books with similar themes so it might be worth a look.--Pleasantman (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of sounds like the movie Knowing. Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Williamson's "Brother to Demons, Brother to Gods" has some similar plot elements... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Douglas Adams's So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish fits that pattern, too.

Question moved from article space
This was the entire text of the article What is the difference between hoarding and saving prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, created by new user Asternoide; I suspect it was intended for here :

(What is the) difference between hoarding and saving in barter system (?)

Gonzonoir (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perception.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of illustrations depicting pedophilia in Canada
Just curious, is it legal to possess or to view an illustration depicting pedophilia? The reason I ask is because I've read about a comic called Mai Chan's Daily Life where supposedly a tiny enfant is raped (and then popped into a blender, but that's a different story). I have to wonder how such a thing could even get published. I'm under the impression that in the film industry, it's illegal to show underage sex, even if the actor is of age.

Thanks. 99.250.7.109 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just took a quick look through the child pornography laws of Canada article. My question is answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.7.109 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't answer legal questions give legal advice, but I don't think it's going beyond the bounds of neighbourly advice to tell you that child pornography is illegal. However it's certainly possible to imagine a comic in which child sex is part of the story, but not depicted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; we don't offer legal advice, but we answer legal questions like focused maniacal legends of the law of all nations. Tempshill (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Tempshill is of course correct. Fixed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors may be of interest to anyone who wants more information on the subject. Pollinosisss (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I realize you don't answer legal questions because there might me some unfortunate implications but I ask purely out of curiosity. If I was in need of legal aid, I would consult a lawyer. 99.250.7.109 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Soldier who kept a diary during the Napoleonic wars?
What was the name of the British soldier in the Napoleonic wars who kept a diary which has subsequently been published? Thanks. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * William Green (British Army soldier) or Benjamin Randell Harris?  meltBanana  18:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are the texts available for free online anywhere, as if published in the 19th. century they must be long out of copyright? I have not found them at Google Books or Archive dot org. 92.29.36.113 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't find William Green online but here is Benjamin Harris and here is a list of the many other accounts.  meltBanana  00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ordering employees to lobby Congress
Please comment on the legality/ethics of a U.S. employer ordering its employees to call their congresspeople and lobby for a specific measure related to the company's business. Does it matter whether the employer is a non-profit? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't offer legal advice, so I can't comment on legality. However I'm pretty sure ordering employees to take political action is highly unethical. Do you really mean "ordering", because "suggesting" or "asking" would be much less ethically dubious. The best place to get advice on legality would probably be your congressperson. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a request for legal advice. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the employer is a lobbying firm, then that would be expected of the employees (although probably only on company time) Googlemeister (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a helpful answer. Obviously lobbyists' job is to lobby. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the employer might not request the lobbying, but the union leaders might. Would that be any less ethical or illegal?  Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutly not. But union leaders don't have nearly the power over their members that an employer has over their employees. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Employers having influence over the politics of their employees is not something most Americans would be comfortable with as a question of civil liberties. If an employer "encouraged" employees to do so, it'd be a little less problematic. To a certain extent it also matters what method of lobbing is used and what the objective is (i.e. honest belief that said legislation is harmful/beneficial to the taxpayer vs. obvious grab for money). It's akin to ordering an employee to get a divorce from their abusive spouse when the stress prevents the employee from working: if they choose to do it on their own that's their business. The legal questions would mostly come up if the employer took action against the employee based on their noncompliance with the order, and you'd need an actual lawyer in that case. SDY (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies. Let me get specific, while discarding the request to comment on legality, and only retaining the request to comment on the ethics. Is it ethical for a non-profit intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded to require its employees to call their congressperson and lobby in favor of H.R. 1255? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If they require it, then no, absolutely not. No modern democracy should permit employers to dictate an employees political actions. What do they say will happen if you don't? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens all the time and makes me a little uncomfortable even when I agree 100%, e.g. a public community college or school using taxpayer funds to lobby the electorate for more taxpayer funds (or in 1978 against California Proposition 13) when the other side does not similarly benefit from public funds (I'm a democratic socialist; so it's the principle not the fiscal issue that concerns me). Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code there could be problems for a non-profit ICF's status under Section 501(c)(3); they cannot campaign in elections and might be limited in the amount and kind of lobbying in which they can engage (although, according to Wikipedia's article, a big non-profit like the American Red Cross can spend up to million dollars a year on lobbying). If you want a rough parallel to clarify what you feel is improper, you could ask how people would feel if Walmart, Godfather's Pizza or Burger King ordered their line employees to lobby against the minimum wage or H.R. 1255? —— Shakescene (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It really happens all the time? I knew US politics was money driven, but for that to happen in either of the countries I am familiar with would be a scandal; and any employee discriminated against for refusing to take part in the lobbying would undoubtedly win an unfair dismissal case (that's not legal advice of course). I find it hard to believe that there is no legislation preventing an employer from requiring an employee to do things that lie outside their job description, just like they can't be required to clean the CEO's yard. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hesitated over what phrase to use; I should have written "commonplace" or something else to suggest that it seems to happen often enough without objection that it seems to be unnoticed. The relevant legislation for Federal civilian employees (rather than contractors or tax-exempt organizations) is the Hatch Act. I'm no labo[u]r lawyer but as I understand the doctrine of employment at will in the absence of a job description or labor contract, a private employer can fire you without cause anyway, so long as he isn't discriminating or retaliating against you for union organizing or whistle blowing (e.g. complaining to the authorities about violations of civil rights, labor or environmental law). You'd have no cause for action if you were discharged after failing to clean (or even after cleaning) the CEO's yard or walking his dog. In the absence of strong private whistle blower laws, it's even unclear and unsettled how much civil protection a private (as opposed to a government) employee has against retaliation for reporting outright fraud or crime by his boss, although the latter's retaliation could be criminally prosecuted for obstruction of justice. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

After writing all that, I remembered why the Reference Desk doesn't offer legal advice or debate matters of opinion such as ethics rather than fact; we (most definitely including me) are not really qualified to do the former, and this isn't a forum for debate about the unresolvable. You should consult a labor or employment lawyer, and perhaps the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in your area. (I deliberately avoided looking up what H.R. 1255's about, but labor organizations or else libertarian ones like the Institute for Justice and the Cato Institute might also help depending on the issue involved.) If you are actually opposed to the substance of H.R. 1255, you might consider that the effect of forced lobbying would be greatly diminished by the public revelation that it was forced and not spontaneous or grass-roots. However, I'd recommend seeking sound legal and labor advice first before considering any disclosures to the targeted Congressional offices or press. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

French poet who taught for a while in a village school in England?
Who was he? I've forgotten. Probably 19th. century. Thanks. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you are thinking of Paul Verlaine, who taught for a while in the small town of Lymington in Hampshire. His pupil, Lucien Létinois, only really known as the object of Verlaine's affection, taught at Stickney, Lincolnshire. Arthur Rimbaud also taught in England, but in London, rather than at a village school. Warofdreams talk 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Canadian law and bankruptcy
I worked for a company for several months that went under and closed up. I'm still waiting on a final paycheque, but have been told that it will be payed from assets in the claim. Anyways, I called the place handling the bankruptcy and was told there "hadn't been a filing yet".

Can anybody translate this into English? Anybody with experience in this sort of situation that could tell me how long I may be waiting for this process? Thanks (Note that I'm not looking for legal advise to this second question, just for people who have waited like I am) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an article Bankruptcy in Canada which may help. Generally speaking, bankruptcy is a legal proceeding where a court protects a debtor from their creditors. In the process, the court attempts to pay off the creditors to the greatest extent possible. The "filing" likely refers to the official filing with the court - that is, although the company is "bankrupt" in that it is closed and doesn't have enough money to pay off its debts, it hasn't yet petitioned the court to start the official bankruptcy proceedings. How long it will take to resolve is anyone's guess. My understanding is that bankruptcies can take anywhere from months to years, depending on the complexities. -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They might mean that the plan for how to liquidate/reorganise hasn't been filed yet. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Language use by world leaders during meetings/summits
I have noticed that some world leaders will always speak the language(s) of their home countries when they have meetings/summits with their counterparts, while other world leaders will speak the language(s) of his/her counterparts' home countries, or some other language which all sides can understand. Are there any rules regarding what languages world leaders must use when speaking with their counterparts? 128.2.247.44 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There aren't really any rules. Leaders will do whatever they think is most effective. Some leaders may not feel that they can communicate effectively in the language of the country they are visiting, or, for that matter, in any language other than their native language.  However, if a leader can communicate effectively in his or her host's language, he or she is likely to use that language, because doing so is likely to ingratiate the officials of the host country.  Marco polo (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are differences policies in different countries. Germany, e.g., has foreign languages among the requirements for its diplomatic corps, while France is very eager to promote the use of its own language and advises its diplomatic corps to only resort to other languages as a last resort; at least that's what I heard some 20 years ago. &mdash; Sebastian 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends - on formal occasions diplomatic protocol requires leaders to speak the language of the country they are representing. In less formal circumstances - e.g. bilateral meetings on the sidelines of a summit, press conferences, etc, leaders are free to choose whatever language they feel is appropriate to the occasion and the audience. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, there have been some embarrassing events involving these assumptions. I remember reading somethign about Richard Nixon's visit to China, and the problem of translators, but the details elude me. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the middle ages, Latin was pretty much the language of European diplomacy, while in the 18th-century it was French. Nowadays there are the six official languages of the United Nations. However, in personal conversations at summit meetings etc., if two leaders have a common language they both feel confident speaking, then they'll probably use that language; otherwise, they'll probably go through translators... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (if I remember the right Chancellor and President) would telephone each other regularly and communicate in English.
 * Interesting! How do you know this? I had always assumed they talked in French. &mdash; Sebastian 08:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was a contemporary parenthetical aside in The Economist. Schmidt spoke good English with an American accent (which doesn't preclude skill in French); I don't know how sound or shaky Giscard's German was, but he didn't feign the ignorance of English that most French presidents since de Gaulle have felt to be a patriotic duty. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find to be a post-imperial irony is that often the revolutionaries and terrorists who are plotting across national/linguistic boundaries to destroy all the positive achievements and freedoms of the U.S., the U.K. and the Commonwealth use English to communicate with each other, as an earlier more-positive generation whose aim was national liberation from English-, French-, Spanish-, Portuguese-, Russian- or German-speaking empires were often forced to use the colonizers' language. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Because I would've thought a lot of them communicated to each other in, say, Arabic? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is ironic or surprising about the governments of the the US and UK using English to communicate? :-) John Z (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chinese leadership is grateful for the opportunity to brush up on their native language whenever the Australian Prime Minister comes calling or they visit him. Normally, they have to resort to English or other languages.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trends of black and white couples
Is it just black male and white female is going up, or white male and black female is also going up. From said in 2007 black man/white women is 2.68 times vice versa, that's about 73%, but 2006 table we had is 2.44 times vice versa. Also is white male and asian female continue rising, or we got some rlief from white male and asian female couples. In 2000 record high of 3.08 but 2006 is 3.05. Is white male and asian female going to be past 3.3 times vice versa. By 2010 is white male and asian female going to hit 3.5 or so?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This page 76 might answer my own question.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * this also answers some of my questions. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For me obsessive compulsive, this gotta answer some of my questions. All human involve stuff could be off by 50 cents--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian male and black female couples
I though it is the thoughtest of all to find a asian amle with black female but the google image post afew of asian guys dating a black lady. Which famous peoples follow this pattern?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in researching your fixation, subject of your repeated scribbled queries, I suggest you start with miscegenation.--Wetman (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * or OCD. Mr.K. (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Concurring with the above, did you even read Afro-Asian that was provided to you last time you asked? Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu chant in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom?
I was wondering if the guy who got his heart ripped out in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was chanting Aum Namah Shivaya? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Peace Corp updated
Is a civilian surge of agri-specialists into Afghanistan and the paying off Taliban fighters instead of a military surge a way to transition from Taliban grown poppy seeds to Karzai grown GMO products? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The solution you suggest is an interesting one. Some reasons why it would probably not succeed are 1) There is probably no crop, GMO or otherwise, that could generate anywhere near as much per acre/hectare in Afghanistan as poppies. (Note that the corrupt Karzai government probably profits more from poppy cultivation than do the Taliban.) 2) Afghanistan is lacking in infrastructure (decent roads, access to ports) needed to bring lower-value crops to market at a low enough cost for them to be very profitable, even if the powers that be could be convinced to give up their poppy money, which is doubtful. 3) The existing power structure of warlords (many of whom are associated with the Karzai regime) does not want to lose their poppy income. 4) Imagine that most Taliban are willing to be "paid off".  What do they do then?  The Afghan economy is a disaster and incapable of generating employment for these men.  Ending poppy cultivation would only reduce the size of the Afghan economy and worsen the prospects of the paid-off Taliban.  What would stop them from taking up arms again to try to drive out whoever is preventing/profiting from poppy cultivation so that they can reinstate the poppy economy and pocket the profits themselves?  5)  Probably a fair number of Taliban recognize that any pay-off is a one-off and will prefer to carry on the struggle, and others are ideologically committed to it.  Marco polo (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Opium production in Afghanistan may be relevant here. AFAIK the only power in recent times to make a successful clampdown in Afghanistan's poppy production were the Taliban in 2000 and our article says it may have significantly weakened their position Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is not a forum for debate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Natural-born life
Why is in a sentencing court, atleast on TV (as I haven't experienced it in real life) the judge uses the phrase "natural-born life" when refering to a life sentence?  Grsz 11  23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Literally for the rest of your life. vs. "life" as 20-25 years. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ISTR either a real account or fictional tale of someone who petitioned to be released from such a sentence after they were resuscitated after a heart attack. They claimed that, given that they had been clinically dead for a few seconds, their "natural-born life" had finished. Grutness...wha?  23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It means they aren't going to end your life early (by executing you). Someone sentenced to death will also spend the rest of their life in prison, but it won't be all of their natural-born life. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The obvious meaning to me (an unbeliever) has always been that the judge is referring to the rest of one's life on earth (and not trying to usurp the Almighty by presuming to dictate where or how the convict will spend Eternity). Cf. "and may the Lord have mercy on your soul" at the end of the classic English death sentence. The phrase may be "the rest of your natural life"; I'm not sure how "natural-born" would fit in, although it may sound more euphonious or rhythmic to a script-writer's ears. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of a story attributed to Kenesaw Mountain Landis when he was a judge before he became Commissioner of Baseball. He had before him a convicted criminal who was like 75 years old. Landis sentenced him to 30 years in prison. The man pleaded, "I can't serve a sentence like that!" Landis said, "Well, do the best you can!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)