Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 20

= December 20 =

Concerning an East German flag designed to be hung vertically


To the right is a photograph of an East German flag that I am curious about. I know from the person I received it from that it is designed to be hung vertically, as opposed to being flown horizontally like a "typical" flag. However, that's about all I know. Why I am most curious about it is that I've been searching the web looking for photographs of other vertical East German flags, but I cannot find anything that looks like it. Is it rare? If not, is there any reason why I can't find photos of it online? Does it have a special name that the keywords "East German vertical flag" just won't find? Also, I'm curious about why it is gold-red-black from left to right, as opposed to black-red-gold as current German flags are when they are hung vertically (based on information from this webpage). I would much appreciate any answers anyone is able to provide. Thanks!
 * With specific reference to the G-R-B rather than B-R-G order of colours, perhaps the photo has been taken of the flag's reverse side? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the coat of arms only appears on one side. And based on the orientation of the coat of arms, it appears that it is gold-red-black. TFCforever (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

TFCforever (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'd love to create an SVG graphic version of the flag, like the standardized flag graphics used across Wikimedia projects, for example in "flagicons". Can this flag be faithfully represented by taking the "standard" East German flag and rotating the coat of arms 90 degrees, or is it more complex than that? Thanks again.


 * It's a "hanging" flag or vertical "banner", meant to be draped along the outside walls of buildings, etc. For an analogous flag, see File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg.  It wouldn't be too difficult to make an SVG of it, based on File:Flag_of_East_Germany.svg and File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm working on an SVG file right now. TFCforever (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be easy: you can get the charge from File:Coat_of_arms_of_East_Germany.svg. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstract Expressionism cartoon
Some years ago, I remember seeing a cartoon that extolled the virtues of Abstract expressionism. The first panel depicted a man (dressed in typical 1940's clothing) pointing to an abstract painting, with the caption "Ha ha! What does this represent?" In the second panel, the painting angrily points back at the man, with the caption "What do you represent?" My questions are - who drew this cartoon (I _think_ it _might_ have been Rothko, but I may very well be wrong), where did it first appear, and - most importantly - is it available on-line anywhere? Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The cartoon is by Ad Reinhardt, and I found a copy here. DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it! Thanks very much indeed. Tevildo (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Merry Christmas! DOGRIGGR (deflea) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lethal injection
Pancuronium bromide is one of the most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence, so doesn't its use in lethal injection make lethal injection unconstitutional? --70.247.248.43 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If used on a conscious entity, you'd have a point, but that is not the case in executions. It's the supreme court that decides what's constitutional and what isn't; in the U.S., they have thus far not found the use of that drug in execution unconstitutional. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that it is "most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence"—it's a paralyzing agent with no hypnotic effects, so if you have that, AND THEN something awful, and you aren't made unconscious first with something else, then you can feel a lot of pain. But it isn't administered by itself—it is part of a "drug cocktail" designed, ideally, to knock you out and kill you without you feeling anything. The Supreme Court has ruled this does not violate the 8th Amendment when done "correctly." In the same ruling, though, they note that if a state continues to use potentially problematic means of killing inmates without sufficient justification in the face of feasible alternatives, that this might be considered an 8th Amendment violation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the point of execution by lethal injection is an advance to make execution less painful that say the electric chair, why would anyone choose a painful drug ? If any society is going to have executions, by all means they should be humane. Execution itself is not cruel and unusual punishment, and I do not believe the Framers intended it to be thought of as an example of that. Just because some murderers are brutal and sadistic, does not mean Society should lower itself to their level. I believe in a life for a life, but in a civilised manner, according to due process. If we adopt capital punishment again in New Zealand, I do not think we will return to hanging, so if we decide on lethal injection, I hope we choose humane drugs. Then the concern for the condemned should not be any earthly pain, but their eternal condition thereafter. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Christiane Wilhelmine Luise of Solms-Roedelheim and Assenheim
Does any know the exact birth date and month of Christiane Wilhelmine Luise of Solms-Roedelheim and Assenheim, the wife of Carl Friedrich Wilhelm, 1st Prince of Leiningen? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * She was born 24 April 1736 at Rödelheim. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

regent franco
Who had Regent Franco and his grandson photo in 1959/1969 ? thanks. --58.152.136.167 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain your question a little more clearly? I think I know what it means, but I'm not sure. Are you asking if someone possesses a copy of a particular picture, or who had taken the picture (i.e. who had photographed the Francos), or something else? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One photo showing Franco standing behind his eight-year old grandson Francisco Franco y Martínez-Bordiú, 11th Marquess of Villaverde at the boy's First Communion in 1962 can be found at generalisimofranco.com. I couldn't find out who took that photograph. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Search and rescue dogs in Thanksgiving Day Parade
I was wondering if any search-and-rescue dogs that worked Oklahoma City, 9/11 and/or Hurricane Katrina were in one of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade events. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma City happened in 1995, so any dogs that were involved there would be very old, particularly for large breeds. Even 2001 is a long time ago for a dog.  Can't answer your primary question, though.   Acroterion  (talk)  22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware the Oklahoma City bombing happened in 1995. But were any of the search-and-rescue dogs from that event in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade of that same year? I'm also aware 9/11 happened in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina happened in 2005. But were any of the search-and-rescue dogs from those events in the same parades of those years?24.90.204.234 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"a life is worth anything"
Is there a shorthand term for the fallacy (IMO) in which a person says "We should pay anything to save the life of a child" or "one human life is priceless" or "a price can't be put on a human life"? Strictly speaking, I can't say it's a logical fallacy; just bad public policy; if taken literally, it means that we are all immoral if the world does not put 100% of its economic output into saving a single life &mdash; but this is all opinion; I'm just looking for a shorthand term for the argument on either side. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Society first. Country first.  Humanity first.  There have been many political, religious, and social movements in the past (and present) that place the whole before the person.  It has nothing to do with logic.  It is just an emotional argument to get people to do what you want them to do. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand it's not a logical fallacy, because it depends on the subjective measure of how you value a human life and human economic output; I'm just wondering if there's a shorthand term for the claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." --Tango (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's certainly a better summary than mine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Utilitarianism = the greatest good of the greatest number. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In term of fallacy, though not logical but the transcendental realty on the question whether the proposition holds a phenomenal or paradoxical validity, I think a shorthand term for the fallacy is a pseudo-proposition in tautology.Couchworthy (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two named fallacies that come close are the argumentum ad misericordiam and the fallacy of Unobtainable Perfection, on which we don't have an article, but which is listed in Madsen Pirie's book. Of course, the statements as they stand are just premisses - until the speaker draws a conclusion from them, we can't really decide what particular branch of invalid reasoning he's using. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending whatever amount of money is suggested on primary healthcare in Africa will usually save the life of one child per ten dollars. This will almost always save more children's lives than whatever safety measure is being proposed. If the proponent was really interested in saving children's lives at any cost they would do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * . Not to be pedantic but because I'd like the 1 life per US$10 reference.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be pedantic. I wasn't intending to give an exact dollar figure, but here is a good reference giving the cost of saving a life at exactly ten dollars. here is one in the same ballpark. Here is a way to do it for under a quarter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Save a child's life for:fifty cents (per year);a few dollars DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The role of birth control and foreign aid in the fight against world hunger
Hello, I am looking for some recent high quality sources on the role of birth control and foreign aid in the fight against world hunger. Thank you very much. --Truckhurry (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm well I'm not sure about birth control, but I think you can find some good sources on the effect of foreign aid in the Malnutrition article, particularly in its references. I've heard that Plumpy'nut has been a successful foreign aid campaign...  TastyCakes (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:Birth control, the main argument is probably most classically expressed in The Population Bomb—if you look for articles discussing it retrospectively that are more modern, they will probably have what you want (some such sources are linked to in the article, but I can't personally vouch for them). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In recent decades, people interested in aid and development in relatively poorer countries have found that a single-minded focus on the technicalities and availability of birth-control and contraception -- to the exclusion of all other factors -- usually doesn't end up changing things in any major way (except in a few situations where a society happens to be at a stage when many people are already predisposed to decrease family size). The single strongest factor towards reducing fertility in a way that actually benefits people is actually improving women's education (as opposed to coercive Indira Gandhi style forced sterilizations, which do little or nothing to improve a country's level of economic development).  Unfortunately, the 1970's population alarmists are considered by some to have had a basically neo-colonialist mentality (i.e. rich white people unilaterally arrogating to themselves the privilege to order around non-whites "for their own good", without much interest in what the non-whites have to say about the matter). AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources please. --Truckhurry (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To put it more generally, plenty of people are in favor of population control - as long as it's someone else's population that's to be controlled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange, I read a lot about poverty and hunger on the net, and they always talk about foreign aid being insufficient but never mention birth control - I have to scroll down to the comments at the bottom of the articles where people always bring up the issue of birth control. Surely, there must be some academic published work on this issue - regarding the efficacy of birth control as a means of reducing poverty and hunger vis-a-vis foreign aid... --76.67.184.31 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos gives the crux of the matter: The single strongest factor towards reducing fertility in a way that actually benefits people is actually improving women's education. Unfortunately birth control has been made a cult issue and can't be addressed directly.--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Source please. --Truckhurry (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

--Truckhurry (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The earth's population will approach an unsustainable total of 10.5 billion unless contraception is put back at the top of the agenda for international efforts to alleviate global poverty. A report by MPs released today challenges world leaders to put the contraceptive pill and the condom at the centre of their efforts to alleviate global poverty, tackle starvation and even help to avert global warming."
 * "Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change, damaging life-nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to poverty, experts concluded in a conference report released Monday. Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050, they warned."

Ram Bahadur Bomjon
What kind of meditation Was Ram Bahadur Bomjon practising when he was sitting in the tree? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Arboreal.--Wetman (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Democracy question
I read in a magazine that in contrast to Finland, which is a representative democracy, where the people vote who gets to officially represent them, and these representatives then decide on government decisions, Switzerland is a direct democracy, where the people vote on government decisions directly. In Finland, there have only ever been two direct votes about government decisions: The first time in 1932, to vote whether prohibition of alcohol should be abolished (result: yes), and the second time in 1994, to vote whether Finland should join the EU (result: yes). In Switzerland, there are apparently direct votes about just about anything. Now, in small enough groups, the group can actually regulate itself and have a consensus that everything works as agreed, but in nation-scale populations, there needs to be a specifically appointed instance that decides that a vote is needed, holds the vote, counts the results, and announces what the result is. There also needs to be some sort of governmental instance that actually acts upon the result. How is this handled in Switzerland? J I P | Talk 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know how Switzerland handles the particular instances of direct democracy. What I read in an introductory text in politics is that in general the democracy in the West is the representative democracy whereas the democracies in most developing countries are proxies. It also seems, as you stated, the strength of partisan nature (the politics in the ideological lines, mostly in the past) or the strength of interest groups in bipartisan or polypartisan nature in bargaining also seems to play a direct democratic role in a representative democracy.Couchworthy (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The process is detailed in Voting in Switzerland, especially Voting in Switzerland. See also Swiss referenda for commentary on the processes of particuarly noteworthy refendums.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that referenda are mulitple questions asked of citizens at the same vote, while referendums is the plural of the referendum as an individual and separate vote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay: you're wrong according to six online dictionaries I just checked under www.onelook.com. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English says that "referenda" as the plural is formal usage; the other five -- American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Encarta, Webster's New World, and Random House (via Infoplease) -- all just list the two plurals without distinguishing them as to usage.  --Anonymous, 01:18 UTC, December 21, 2009.
 * Okay, found where I got that opinion from: it's in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is also quoted on Wikipedia at Referendum: "Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning ballots on one issue (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning things to be referred, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues." This I take to mean: multiple votes each on one issue = referendums; a vote on multiple issues = referenda. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but that's talking about what would be etymologically logical; it makes no claim that anyone actually makes such a distinction. And you left off the end of it: "Those who prefer the form referenda are presumably using words like agenda and memoranda as models.  Usage varies at the present time (1981), but The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981) recommends referendums, and this form seems likely to prevail." (At least, that's what it says in the OED Supplement; I can't access the OED Online from home to see if they've changed it since 1981.)--Anonymous, 10:22 UTC, December 22, 2209.

It says in the article Voting in Switzerland:
 * Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time. In addition, in most cantons all votes are cast using paper ballots that are manually counted.

How far does this extend? Can a person go up to the government and say, for example, "I want eating bananas in public in the municipality of Kleiner Irgendwodorf to be penalised because they smell bad" or will this be counted as frivolous? On the other hand, can just one single person cause the entire country to vote on, for example, replacing the entire direct democracy with an absolute dictatorship with the proposing person as the sole dictator? J I P | Talk 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Switzerland, but in American states with the voter initiative system, you need to have a certain number of signatures of registered voters for a referendum to go on the ballot (the state legislature may also be able to put a referendum on the ballot). A measure enacted by referendum is subject to the same constitutional restrictions as any other law. For example, in the case Romer v. Evans, the US Supreme Court overturned an anti-gay law that had been enacted via a referendum in Colorado. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the English articles don't cover all of this. If I recall correctly from previous queries and discussions, you are able to read German, JIP, and the German articles on de:Volksabstimmung (Schweiz), de:Volksinitiative (Schweiz), as well as de:Obligatorisches Referendum and de:Fakultatives Referendum explain quite a bit more.
 * Bottom line: On a national level, it makes sense to distinguish between three types of votes:
 * Popular initiative: This is the one where you potentially could ask for a vote on publically eating bananas in Irgendwodorf, it is the only instrument where the people (an initiative committee of between 7 and 27 citizens with suffrage) can come up with their own text. Before anything else happens, however, the text has to be approved by the Federal Chancellery, who will check the text for ambiguity, potential advertising, differences in translations, etc. Once the committee gets the green light, it has 18 months to collect 100,000 signatures, which again have to be checked and verified by the Chancellery. Popular initiatives can only suggest revisions of the Swiss Federal Constitution. There is no corresponding popular instrument for changing laws on a federal level.
 * For changing federal laws, there is only the reactive instrument of the facultative referendum. Basically, once the Federal Assembly of Switzerland has made a legislative decision, you have 100 days to collect 50,000 signatures asking for a vote on the newly passed law, etc. Alternatively, the wish of eight cantonal governments also suffices to ask for a referendum within the same period of 100 days.
 * Finally, there is the obligatory referendum: Any change to the constitution made by Switzerland legislative body must also be approved by the people in a federal vote. This is done automatically and requires no collection of signatures.
 * The fact that there is no direct instrument to issue a referendum on federal laws has led to a couple of odd and contrived popular initiatives, suggesting amendments to the constitution which don't really fit in a constitution.
 * This is just a very basic overview on the federal level. Cantons and communities have their own individual instruments, with differing thresholds and requirements. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sluzzelin is correct. On a conceptional level, Switzerland is often described as a semi-direct democracy. Whereas in a theoretical direct democracy every question would be decided by a simple majority vote, in a semi-direct system the usual representative organs of the state (legislative and executive) are complemented by direct popular authority exercised in circumscribed ways. In such a system, the people, apart from electing representatives as they do elsewhere, also act as a sui generis additional branch of government that is perhaps best conceived of as an additional chamber of the legislature with the limited but overriding powers (called Volksrechte or people's powers) described above. A similar, but less extensive system (indeed partly based on the Swiss model) has been implemented in California.
 * As Sluzzelin says, at the cantonal and municipal level, the people generally have more authority. For instance, in my canton, the people can directly create or amend cantonal statutes, not only the cantonal constitution, by popular initiative. They can also exercise a form of facultative referendum (called "constructive referendum" or Volksvorschlag, people's proposition) that if adopted does not simply veto a bill passed by Parliament, as on the federal level, but amends it. Finally, all new cantonal state expenditures above two million CHF are also subject to referendum, so the people get to vote on new infrastructure projects and the like.
 * But these substantial powers are checked by federal oversight: the cantonal people act as a "normal" branch of cantonal government and remain bound by federal law and the cantonal constitution; their actions and enactments are subject to federal judicial review like other cantonal acts of government; the same applies mutatis mutandis to the municipal level. For instance, it used to be common until relatively recently that the naturalization of new citizens would be decided on by popular hand vote at municipal assemblies in many cantons. This resulted in relatively many people from unpopular minorities, notably immigrants from the Balkans, being denied naturalization. A series of controversial Federal Supreme Court decisions circa 2000 then held that cantonal authorities may not arbitrarily (for instance, without a rational reason) reject a petition for naturalization; and since this is difficult to ensure in a popular assembly, many cantons have now shifted this authority to representative branches of government.  Sandstein   05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To return to the original question, the problem of frivolous initiatives only really exists at the federal constitutional level, because the other popular instruments are reactive or, at the cantonal level, subject to federal judicial review. Up until recently, frivolous initiatives were not considered to be a practical problem, because overly radical initiatives (such as the introduction of Nazi-inspired authoritarian government in the 1930s or the abolition of the army in the 1990s) had always been resoundingly voted down. But recently a number of populist initiatives, notably providing for mandatory lifetime imprisonment for certain serious offenders or the recent minaret ban, have unexpectedly succeeded despite arguably violating basic civil rights and the European Convention of Human Rights to which Switzerland is a party. How to address this problem is an entirely unresolved and strongly debated issue in current Swiss politics.  Sandstein   06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)