Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 17

= February 17 =

Why is the gov't obligated to help people get out of foreclosure?
I'm referring to the US gov't on the subprime mortgage crisis. Why should taxpayers help out homeowners who got subprime mortgages? If I, for example, don't give full, timely payment for a car, the car will be taken away. I don't expect other people to be forced pitch in so my car wouldn't get repossessed. Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic? I think it's even worse because those homeowners weren't in good financial status in the first place to get the house. I'm not looking for some right vs left, conservative vs liberal debate here. I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! (P.S I realize there's enough blame to go around for the crisis. Securitization of the subprime mortgages is one big cause.  I don't want this question to be a discussion of the causes of the crisis. 199.76.164.202 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe because lax government regulations and oversight played a significant role in creating the mortgage mess in the first place, and because foreclosing on every mortgage which is behind would significantly worsen the current economic crisis? Also, if banks can get hundreds of billions in government funds, then why can't some cash be directed towards hard-pressed individuals?  In any case, few are advocating mortgage aid for people who were always way in over their heads -- it's the marginal cases, who have the ability to make significant payments, but who are still at risk of foreclosure, who are the most eligible candidates for such aid. AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From a macro point of view, helping struggling homeowners is a targeted fiscal stimulus. Like a tax cut, the extra money that the government distributes will either be directed towards consumption (which helps reduce inventories of consumer goods, encouraging producers to produce more, employing more labour, capital etc.) or savings (in the case of a struggling homeowner, the most obvious place to build savings is via the equity in their home, which helps bolster real estate and real estate-derived asset prices).    Is a targeted stimulus better than a regular stimulus (a general tax cut or spending increase)?  Difficult to say, but it would have to be analyzed in the normal economy terms: equity (equality) and efficiency.
 * It's definitely not more equitable. Although it's somewhat progressive - as some least well-off citizens will be the ones who aren't able to make their mortgage payments - the least well off people never even tried to buy a house in the first place, and wouldn't be getting any help.  Tax cuts, on the other hand, can be targeted by income.  It can't be more efficient.  Rather then letting the free market or the aggregate general public choose how to allocate the funds, they are being distributed in an area with a very high marginal propensity to invest in housing.
 * It's possible that there are externalities when foreclosure happens, and that government is trying to avoid these. The assumption of "costless bankruptcy" is a common one in the economics of finance, but doesn't reflect reality.
 * It's also possible that the government believes that the environment of fear is resulting in imperfect information or non-rational decision making in real estate, and real estate derived asset markets. If this was the case, and these asset prices are temporarily and artificially depressed, then propping them up temporarily could be seen as offsetting this externality or market imperfection, yielding an 'efficient' allocation.
 * It's also possible that, since struggling homeowners tend to be in areas hardest hit by the coming recession generally (say: Michigan), distributing funds in this way allows government to target the stimulus in the hardest hit areas.
 * Without entering a partisan discussion, I would suggest that this policy be better analyzed from the point of view of political science than economics. A few political points:
 * 1) Blue states and swing states have been very hard hit. The hardest hit states will get the most relief under a mortgage assistance plan.
 * 2) Homeowners and people on fixed incomes or social assistance are more likely to vote than others.
 * 3) The democrats ran on a "struggling low-to-middle class assistance" platform. They need to reward these voters with something tangible.
 * I'm sure others on the ref desk can think of quite a few more political points. NByz (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, you would say "My next door neighbor had it coming... He shoulda never taken on more debt than he needed, and if he gets forclosed, its just deserts" Sure, until his house, and twenty others like it in your neighborhood get forclosed, and even though you've never missed a mortgage payement and you bought your house in a good neighborhood, now through no fault of your own, your house has lost 20 percent of its value, and the good neighboorhood now has twenty houses for vagrants and meth labs and crack dealers to move into.  So you tell me?  How many of your neighbors in your neighborhood do you want to see get what's coming?  This stuff does not exist in a vacuum, and plenty of innocents are being dragged down because of the crisis.  The government's responsibility is to protect people who have done nothing wrong.  Even if it means proping up those that did.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The more liberal side of politics would add protecting people who have done something wrong but did so under mitigating circumstances. In this case, that includes people who were misled by faulty professional advice (i.e. they were told by a person they trusted that these loans were a good idea).  When that crosses the line into fraud and other criminal activities is very gray, but protecting people from the effects of crime is clearly in the government's realm of responsibility.  Otherwise this could really be seen as a natural disaster (human nature in this case) and the government also helps out with disaster relief.  SDY (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic?" - a car is a disposable item of (normally) considerably less value than a home, your occupation may require you to have a car but it is not in the same league as losing your home either in terms of your finances or life-distruption. "I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! " - Many would argue that by doing nothing you would be Cutting off the nose to spite the face. The crisis has occured so whilst there are lessons to be learnt about how/why this transpired, the question is what action will have the biggest (positive) impact at the best cost-to-impact ratio? Some Economists have argued that we should let the banks fail, some argue that we should step in and save the banks - others argue for Nationalisation of (more) banks. As it is there is no given definitive answer, but certainly the 'reason' that 'we' are helping (i'm in the Uk so slightly different) is that we are believing that acting now with money will be less costly than trying to pick the country back up again if we let things pan out without any interruption. It happens all the time with government pumping money into industries, seeking ways to prevent shut-down and it happens all the time with private-businesses but in the current climate the problem is the depth and breadth of the crisis means that more 'visible' action is taking place. 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)


 * The short answer is that you're right: it's fundamentally unfair to reward people for bad choices. Fairness just isn't a very high priority when you're trying to prevent another Asian financial crisis, or worse.  --Sean 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, but that also depends on your how you want to look at "fair" and "unfair". For example, is it fair that people who make bad choices have to suffer the consequences? Maybe. But is it fair that their kids have to suffer as well? Or that their other creditors get the fallout when these people suddenly find themselves in a financial crisis? This "every man for himself" crap is pretty short-sighted. The economy just isn't as simple as it was when squirrelskins and potatoes were considered as (or more) useful than paper money. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's compare the house and car examples. If your neighbor couldn't make his car payment, and it's repossessed, that probably won't have all that much effect on you.  If your neighbor's house is foreclosed, however, and it won't sell in this depressed market, and ends up being boarded up with homeless and/or drug dealers living in there, that will have a profound negative effect on you and your home value. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The American government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” In this light it seems natural that if enough of the people are in need of some particular help the government will respond. People vote based on their personal problems, not necessarily what seems fair. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not taking it to the extreme that StuRat does in his example, homes that do not sell generally drop in property value. Prospective buyers will look at the date the home went on sale and think to themselves "Gee, this house has been on the market for 3 months/6 months/1 years, etc, why hasn't it sold yet? Is there something wrong with it?" This will carry over to YOUR house when people look at homes in the area and think "well, if this house over here can't sell, maybe its something wrong with the area. I don't want to live there" Its poor logic on the behalf of the prospective buyer, but it is what happens. Livewireo (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more logical than that. Why would a potential buyer pay the asking price for your home if your neighbor's identical foreclosed house is on sale for half that ? StuRat (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Passport
Do you need a passport to travel from Australia to New Zealand? Does the Trans-Tasman passport agreement still apply? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See . --Sean 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You definitely need a passport. If you are an Australian citizen (which I presume you are otherwise you wouldn't be in Australia without a passport) or permanent resident, you probably don't need anything else, even if you want to work (see, and ). However you definitely should contact the New Zealand high commision to make sure, there are other potential complications e.g. if you have a previous criminal conviction Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are asking an incomplete question. Perhaps you are asking if an Australian citizen can travel to New Zealand without a visa? You need to be a bit more specific about your question. 118.71.169.174 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Travel Europe To Australia
Is It Quicker To Go From Europe To Australia Via Aircraft Than Australia To Europe Via Aircraft? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just looked up Melbourne to Paris and back on a variety of routes, and the trip varies from 20-24 hours of flight time, with the to-Europe direction taking an hour or so longer than the return direction.


 * Plus half a day more for getting through customs at Charles-De-Gaulle Airport.--KageTora (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're lucky. --Sean 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having headwinds or tailwinds can make some difference in how long a flight or the reverse flight takes. Time zones don't really change how long a flight takes, but can make it appear to take more or less time, when comparing departure and arrival times in the local time zones. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparative religion: Jesus
It's the consensus view that Jesus is both fully deity and fully human. In my opinion, this introduces unnecessary complexity, such as the need to answer the questions "did Jesus exist before he was born?" and "did Jesus exist after he died?". (deities in general, and the Christian God in particular, are usually considered to exist eternally)

Question #1: Are there any other religions that share this concept of fully human and fully deity?

Regarding the question of "did Jesus exist after he died?", it's true that deicide is prevalent throughout mythology (see life-death-rebirth deity for more examples). However, Jesus is the only one that I know of where a non-deity was able to kill a diety.

Question #2: Are there any other examples where a deity was killed by a non-deity? --Underpants 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any confusion my handle might cause — this is a serious question, and all of my contributions have been done in good-faith. --Underpants 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the consensus view among Christians? There isn't a general consensus view. Doesn't the Bible say something like "In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God"? The "Word" here is mean to be Christ (see Christ the Logos), so that would suggest he existed before he was born. And Christians frequently pray to him, so that would suggest he still exists now (ie. after his death). But you really can't discuss this without discussing the concept of the Trinity, and I'm not sure there is even consensus among Christians about that. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that the questioner means 'consensus among Christians', and among Christians overwhelming belief is Trinitarian. Those who dissent from it number only a few percent of Christians.
 * Question 1: I know of no belief system that has a corresponding concept to this. Several polytheistic religions allowed for 'hybrids' between Gods and humans, but those demi-gods didn't have the full nature of both. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in some traditions, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu who, in some traditions, is the supreme being and, in some traditions, Krishna was killed by a mortal with an arrow. Haukur (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This notion of "deity" you are talking about is an extremely monotheistic notion, and so your question doesn't apply to polytheistic religions. I mean, when you ask "has there ever been a person in mythology that's both human and god?", then yes, obviously there have been. There's been lots of them. But when you phrase it so specifically, "is there anyone that's both fully human and fully a deity", you're framing it in a way that really only applies to monotheistic religions
 * Take Heracles for example. He's a human and a god at the same time. Sure, you can argue that he's not fully a human and fully deity, but he certainly fits the bill. You can argue (and many have) that this whole hypostatic union thing in Christianity is just a variation on the same theme.
 * As for question two, this again is sort-of out of context if we're talking about polytheism. In Christianity, there's only one god and everything supernatural somehow comes from him. That's simply not the case in polytheism, there's lots of different variations of "deity". Was Medusa a deity? Is the Sphinx a deity? There isn't really an answer, because the monotheistic concept of "deity" simply doesn't apply.
 * But, for fun, lets explore the possibilities. If we assume that these guys are deities, then the answer is obviously "yes". Medusa was killed by Perseus (by the way, she was the daughter of deity, so it's fair to assume she was one as well) and Oedipus made short order of a Sphinx. But now, lets assume that these things aren't deities. If we can't consider Medusa a deity, surely we can't consider the Giants of Nordic mythology deities either? I mean, they're just hulking guys walking around. But Loki was a giant (a non-deity, by our hypothesis), and he killed Baldr, unquestionably a deity. So it seems that the answer would yes either way.
 * My point with that little ridiculous argument was "don't come over here with your monotheistic concepts of human and godlike. We polytheists do our own thing! You can't really compare your conceptions of divinity with ours!" Your questions don't have good answers, because it's comparing apples to oranges Belisarius (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call the question ridiculous - I think my Krishna answer is a fairly reasonable parallel. And while it's true that pagans/Hindus have different conceptions of deity than the Abrahamic religions you should not forget the demiurge and the brahman. Haukur (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had guessed that the diety/non-diety distinction was a result of the recent focus on philosophical/scientific naturalism, but you're totally right, it's a distinction that really only has importance under a monotheistic mindset. (it's only when you say "there can be only one god" that it suddenly becomes important to pin down exactly who is a god and who isn't) Thanks for broadening my horizons, it looks like I finally have enough reasons to dive into Hellenistic polytheism. --Underpants 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, that's very nice of you to say, I'm happy to broaden horizons! BTW, if you wish to broaden your horizons even further, don't just focus on the Hellenistic mythologies, there's a whole bunch of mythologies and gods that no one cares about that's way more fascinating. My favorites are the Aesir, Odin and Loki and those guys, but there are many more. There's Gilgamesh, Anansi, Cúchulainn, Quetzalcoatl and many more. Maybe it's just me, but I find all these guys endlessly fascinating.
 * Haukur: when I said "ridiculous", I was referring to my own little argument about whether you could consider Medusa and the Sphinx a deities or not. It was sort-of a reductio ad absurdum, but with gods instead of math. The question is not ridiculous at all (look how much fascinating conversation we got out of it!), and your Krishna-answer was excellent, and well to the point. I was just trying to make about how differently people view gods depending on whether they're monothestic or polythestic, that's all :) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mini-comment: many consider Jesus to have been in voluntary control of the moment of his own death, because of the verse where he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; it is finished" and then "gave up the ghost." So, if one buys that, it wouldn't be a case of an immortal being killed by a mortal. --Masamage ♫ 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure there are still monophysites around in the Eastern church. You might also find that a lot of people casually hold monophysite doctrine without realising it. See also monothelitism and miaphysite. Steewi (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe no one mentioned Gilgamesh, who was two-thirds god and one-third human, a nice trick if you can manage it. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Athanasian Creed explains the views of many mainstream Christian denominations. That creed, at least 1500 years old, says there is only one God. That God exists as three persons. The Son is "infinite," "eternal," "begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother." Per the creed, he died, descended to hell, rose from the dead, then ascended to heaven. This creed would logically have had the two persons of God called The Father and The Holy Spirit living, during any time the person called The Son was dead. This creed seems to say that he existed before he was born as a human, and then he was made man, and died, then was resurrected, then exists eternally. A cartoon once depicted the Christian God saying to humans "Don't make me come down there!" Edison (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm indenting in the right place here. Edison, in the Athanasian Creed it says 'He descended into hell and rose again from the dead' and in the Apostles' Creed (in use today) it says, 'He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again'. To understand this we have to go back to the Jews. Jews who followed the Law and by doing so attained a place in Heaven could not go straight to Heaven when they died as Jesus had not opened the gates of heaven. Christians believe that the gates of Heaven had to be opened by Jesus and that this happened when He died. The Jews who had attained a place in Heaven therefore lived in what we call the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus descended into the Limbo where they existed to 'let them into' Heaven, and this is what He was doing when He 'decended into hell'. The hell referred to here is not the hell where the suffering souls exist. --JoeTalkWork 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Belisarius - This is some real nitpicking, but Oedipus didn't make short work of the Sphinx, she killed herself (leaped to her death) and Loki didn't kill Baldr, he gave the mistletoe weapon to Höðr to perform the deed - and Höðr was a deity. In the main, however, I agree that the question is difficult to apply to non-monotheistic religions. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To pick the nits on your nits, the version of the story in Gesta Danorum presents Baldr as a god and Höðr as a human. Haukur (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware of both of those two little counter-arguments, but I choose to ignore them :) It's true, Höder (I don't have an Icelandic keyboard, and that was how I was taught his name was spelled, so I'm going with that) was the one who fired the arrow, but lets face it, it was Loki that killed Balder. Höder didn't know what he was doing, and if the case had gone to a modern trial Loki would be the one who would be convicted, not poor blind Höder. And indeed, he was the one who got the worst punishment, even though Höder suffered too (being killed was down-right merciful in comparison to what happened to Loki. And Höder will be resurrected after Ragnarök, so you know, no harm, no foul).
 * As for Oedipus, it's true, all he did was answer the riddle correctly. It technically would have been more correct to state that he "defeated" the Sphinx, but it's all the same in the end. The Sphinx is dead, and she wouldn't have been had not Oedipus mastered her.
 * However, my nits are rightly picked. I should perhaps have been more specific, but the stories I mentioned were only incidental to my main point about the different conceptions of deities, and I didn't want to clutter up my argument.
 * (can I just say how much I love the Humanities Reference Desk! Whenever I start droning on about these things in real life, people just roll their eyes and don't care one lick. But then I come here, and find a whole cadre of people who think these things are just as fascinating as I do! And way smart people, too! I love you guys!) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that Christians only believe that Christ's human nature died on Good Friday (i.e. not his divine nature). However, in the TV drama which Christopher Ecclestone's wiki page describes as a 'religious telefantasy epic' - The Second Coming (TV serial) the Protagonist (supposedly Jesus Christ)'s friend Judy kills both his human and divine natures, and along with Him 'God, Satan, Heaven and Hell - the end of all religion'. --JoeTalkWork 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Vasilievich
In Leo Tolstoy's short story, After The Ball, the incidents are narrated by one Ivan Vasilievich. Though this person is not shown to be "terrible" at all, is this name an allusion to the actual name of Ivan The Terrible (which was Ivan Vasilyevich)?--Leif edling (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but from the article, "The epithet "Grozny" is associated with might, power and strictness, rather than poor performance, horror or cruelty. Some authors more accurately translate it into modern English as Ivan the Awesome." NJGW (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are apparently references to the Empress Elizabeth, Tsar Peter the Great, and Tsar Nicholas I in the story, and the vocabulary is "high and courtly" throughout, but only "to turn a provincial ball into a representation of the imperial court as a whole". I can't see any evidence that it was based on real people or events.  Ivan as a given name and Vasilievich as a patronymic are both extremely common in Russia, and so it would be very unlikely, without any specific evidence, that a narrator called "Ivan Vasilievich" has anything to do with our "terrible" friend, Tsar Ivan IV.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish War Film & German War Film
Does anyone know the name of a brilliant war film made in Finland in the 1990s? I cannot remember the name, but it was about a small platoon of Finnish soldiers fighting the Russians. Some details: It was all in Finnish. The soldiers were on bicycles. The main character looks like Jude Law. Also, does anyone know the name of a German war film, also from the 1990s, about a German soldier captured by the Russians and sent to work in Siberia. He escapes and ends up walking back to Germany, via Iran. It has '9,000km' in the Japanese title, if that helps. (Sorry, I watched both of these films in Japan). TIA. --KageTora (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the second film, see and . Oda Mari (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Thanks, Mari! Now I just need the other one!--KageTora (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Talvisota? If that's the one I half-remember, it is brilliant. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be Rukajärven tie. See and  too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Finnish film's definitely Rukajärven tie, or Ambush, as some extremely imaginative person saw fit to rename it for the English language release. (The literal translation would be "The Road to Rukajärvi". Rukajärvi is a municipality (as well as a lake) in Karelia, Russia, and it was occupied by Finns during the Continuation War.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks like the one, 'Rukajärven tie'! Thanks again! I watched the original Finnish one with Japanese subtitles and thought it was brilliant, but now I have the name, I can look for one with English subtitles.--KageTora (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

US Democrats and US Republicans
I am looking for the link to the Wiki archive question regarding US Democrats and US Republicans. I believed someone originally asked why it seemed that the US Republicans are very conservative and (I think) anti-NAACP while the US Democrats are not. Then someone answered that the Republicans were the ones that freed the slaves. But then someone answered that today's Republicans are defintely not the same ones that Abe Lincoln was a part of and that these are just labels. Does anyone remember or know the link to this? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this it ? Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_June_21. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thank you very much. --Emyn ned (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

StuRat (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal question regarding polygamy.
I've been meaning to catch up on the show Big Love for quite some time now, so I marathoned through the first season this weekend. I enjoy it very much (the cognitive dissonance you get from watching that show is enough to give you an aneurysm), but I have a question about it:

In case you haven't seen it, it's about a "modern" polygamist named Bill living in Utah with his three wives, Barb (his first wife and the only legal one), Nicky and Margie. They live in the suburbs in adjoining McMansions, and Bill rotates the nights he spends with each of his wife (so every wife gets every third day with him at night). Everyone is grown-up and everything is consensual.

My question is this: is he actually breaking any laws? I don't mean in the libertarian sense ("they're grown-ups, they should be allowed to do anything they want!") that what they're doing shouldn't be illegal, I mean does there actually exist a law in the state of Utah or the United States that they are breaking? My point is, he's only legally married to one of them, she's the only one that the state of Utah considers his wife. He doesn't have three marriage certificates. He's not cheating on his taxes. Beyond that, what can you really legislate about? I mean, from a legal standpoint, if you can convict him, you really should be able to convict any adulterer, right? How can the state just go in and tell him who he has to sleep with? Isn't there an amendment and a recent supreme court case that specifically states that as long as everything is consensual and with grown-ups, the state should butt out of what people are doing in their bedrooms? Belisarius (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, technically adultery is illegal in Utah. It is a class B misdemeanor as defined in Utah Code Sectoin 76-7-103.  Also see the section on bigamy.  Part of the bigamy definition also defines a bigamist as a married person who "cohabits with another person."  So Bill may only have one official marriage, but authorities in the show could use the cohabitation definition against him. Laenir (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In practice, no Utah sheriff would arrest him, and no Utah prosecutor would charge him. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether these polygamous groups have brought a U.S. Constitutional challenge under the Free Exercise Clause. If I am correct, the Court ruled on this in the past. Would a renewed challenge work? Some crimes are so heinous that they are not protected as a religious exercise. Certainly, though, polygamy as a crime is attenuated for the adults. Times seem to be changing. I believe the state has a right to protect children, though. 75Janice (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice


 * Sherbert v. Verner -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Guns for roses
So some police departments in the US swapped working guns for a rose and $100 in vouchers. I'm not American so I have some questions: how much is a typical second hand gun worth? is it hard for people to sell second hand guns themselves? thanks 121.72.165.27 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Price varies, like anything else, based on as-new price and condition. You can get new "junk gun" for as little as $50; this discrepancy has been exploited in the past, where licensed gun dealers have gone to police buyback events with a big box of brand new junk guns and made a profit from trading each one in. Secondly, legally, most (all?) states have laws that control how handguns are sold and require paperwork for both parties in the transaction - so if the gun isn't legally held, it' can't legally be sold.  Of course there's a black market in guns, but given the price of legal handguns the price of illegal ones on the black market isn't very much.  I guess prices for things like Ak-47s and machine guns, which are much more difficult to legally own, will thus command a much higher black market price (and you won't see too many in the cops' tradein). 87.113.5.56 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would love to see police officers armed with roses and vouchers to give out. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Federal law (as I misunderstand it) is not concerned if you sell a gun casually, provided that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing it and selling guns is not a regular business of yours (this is the "gun show loophole"); there may also be a requirement that both parties be resident in the State where the sale occurs, I don't remember for sure. If you make a business of selling guns, then you need a Federal Firearms License; a condition of holding this is that you go through all the paperwork hoops.  The State of California forbids gun transfers except to or from a FFL holder (but this doesn't stop California politicians from campaigning against a nonexistent loophole!).  I once heard two acquaintances agreeing to a fiction that their transaction was taking place in Nevada.  —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you might be right on that they have to live in the same state. Is it the Sherman Antitrust Act, or something like that? Anyway, being a resident of Canada, I really don't know for sure. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why Antitrust?? I think it's the Gun Control Act of 1968; Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle by mail, so obviously we can't have that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a Science Fiction book I read ~17 years ago.
I read a book when I was ~10 years old (~1992) and for the past several years have been trying to find it again. The book was about a young man who was playing a flavor of "laser tag" and was achieving a high score. When he achieved that high score he was recruited by a group of aliens (of different species that were recruited in the same manner) that wished to utilize his skills on the battlefield. I thank you for your time, have a great day!


 * Could you be referring to the novelization of The Last Starfighter? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just coming to post Warriors of Kudlak, but that was an episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures, not a book from 17 years ago. -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right I wrote that prematurely, I thought I had erased it :|
 * You did, but you blanked a lot of other stuff too, so I put it back because I thought you made a mistake :) Sorry! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of sounds like Ender's Game, though the details are different. Ed's guess is good, too. --Masamage ♫ 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Space Demons by Gillian Rubinstein. There is a sequel called Skymaze. Steewi (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all I remember a sequence in the book where one of the aliens that was recruited confused the enemy by firing from multiple locations to make it seem like they were surrounded. Thanks for the help so far guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.247.227 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could be Only You Can Save Mankind by Terry Pratchett? Although I don't think that was laser tag, so maybe not...Duke Of Wessex (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ender's Game was my first thought after The Last Starfighter, sounds like a description of the battle room. Just remember the enemy's gate is down!  Lanfear's Bane |  t  15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chateauneuf castle
hello, I would like to know if someone at Wikipedia can expand on the Chateauneuf castle in Saint Germain en Haya, preferably if it can have its own article outside of the Chateau at Saint Germain en Haya article, also I have some questions about the Chateauneuf, and would like to know if there is some historian I could contact to talk to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracx (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The French Wikipedia has an article, "Château-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye", which I will now attempt to translate over to the English Wikipedia. (I assume that you meant "Laye". I'm going to scold you now for asking such a hard question and giving us bad information through carelessness.) If you look at the talk page for the article "Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye" you will see banners for several WikiProjects, including France and European History. The links in those banners will take you to the project pages where you can ask what you like on their talk pages. This link will turn blue when I've started the article: Chateau-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Milkbreath, the OP is Mexican and en Haya may be not French. Btw, the article has a date typo @ 177 that needs fixing. Looked for it but didn't turn up anything. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT holidays
Does anyone know of any lists of LGBT-related holidays or days of note - the type with birthdays of notable figures in the LGBT community, dates of key LGBT rights laws or treaties being put into effect- that kind of thing. Thanks. Sam 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)
 * List of LGBT holidays? Timeline of LGBT history only shows years. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's precisely what I was looking for! D'oh, I can't believe I overlooked that page.