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

= September 17 =

Converts to Judaism in Nazi era
Were people who converted to the Jewish faith during the Nazi era in Europe treated the same as racial Jews. I.e. would a non racial Jewish convert be sent to an extermination facility, or just a concentration camp as a jewish sympathiser. Thanks very much


 * The article on Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany implies that Germans who converted were counted amongst the Jewish (which makes sense, given how much the Nazis would have considered that sort of thing to be "race treachery"), though I haven't seen anything about this particular question myself. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Isabelle Urquhart bio?
At this time I am to new to site and code writing so I am find it very hard create a new page however is enough info on public domain site for her bio page to be completed for example. http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?parent_id=560813&word= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A01E4D6153EE033A2575BC0A9649C946697D6CF http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=62940 So,who are the experts at wikipedia who can help me? -- 01:22, 17 September 2009 User:Jhasara


 * There is a place you can ask other editors to start an article for you; begin at Requested articles. Not knowing anything about the time, though, you will have to state why she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.  Tempshill (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems notable enough. Have a look at what I hath wrought and tell me what you think. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorruptible FBI
I have reard that the FBI had a reputation for being incorruptible for, I believe, decades. If I recall correctly, this was taken for granted in The Godfather (the novel), for example. Am I correct about this reputation? (Obviously corner cases must have existed, but I'm asking about the general reputation of the organization.) If so, why the incorruptibility? It wasn't religious fanaticism or incredibly high pay. Tempshill (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody’s perfect. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure this chap just found it difficult to find evidence on the mafia as opposed to civil righters. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A basic truth about federal law is that it at least tries to appear to be moral and fair, which makes people who uphold and enforce it appear to be moral and fair and its violators immoral and unfair. -- Taxa (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton Everyone is corruptible. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * J. Edgar Hoover's carefully groomed self-presentation was taken at face value until after the threat that he represented was removed by his death. Compare the public reputation of that other head of a secret police, Lavrentiy Beria.--Wetman (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's usually a contrast between local and federal enforcement. Local enforcement can be bribed—there are a limited number of people and they have strong local political interests (the sheriff needs to be reelected, as does the judge, etc.). Federal enforcement is more tricky—there are more people, and their political interests are in "big" politics, not "small" politics. So J. Edgar Hoover doesn't need somebody in Chicago to keep his job—he needs to please Congress, and the President, to do so. There's not necessarily a whole lot that someone in Chicago can do to make Hoover happy. You can bribe one Congressman—can you bribe 50 of them? Additionally, by being "outsiders", the FBI generally don't have stakes in local disputes. Local cops are going to be there every day for years—they can build up debts, illicit arrangements, etc. G-men come in only when there is a problem—they don't know you, they don't want to know you, they don't owe you anything.
 * This is, of course, quite different than saying someone is honest and truly incorruptible. It just means that local hoods can't bribe federal enforcement, usually, because there is a little more oversight and they don't have local investments. Hoover and the FBI were certainly anything but pure in intent and spirit. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

HEALTH CARE REFORM
In 2008 Frontline surveyed health care plans around the world and found the following reforms: INSURANCE: MEDICAL SERVICES It seems the real problem with passing health care reform is the number of people whose job will be lost. Reform requires insurance and health provider administration cost reduction from the current 23% or more to 2% or less. The cost of health services needs to be reduced as well similar to MRI scan cost reduction in Japan's reformed system. Can this be done by replacing insurance and health care personnel (including diagnosticians) with computers and by installing other operational and delivery efficiencies? -- Taxa (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) funding
 * 2) all must buy
 * 3) poor subsidized
 * 4) profit
 * 5) break even, not for profit
 * 1) delivery
 * 2) everyone is covered
 * 3) basics services guaranteed
 * 4) cost
 * 5) electives minimized
 * 6) administration computerized


 * Plenty of people are trying to reduce healthcare costs in both public and private sectors in many parts of the world. Computers often form an important part of this. However it's not always easy, and you have to be cautions since the side-effects of getting it wrong (such as losing medical records at a critical time) are very serious. However even with both trying to cut costs like this, US healthcare remains much more expensive than healthcare in other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's expensive. It's privatized, for-profit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The real problem with passing health care reform" in the US isn't the (unknown) number of middle-class bureaucrat jobs that will be lost, but the number of rich incomes that will be lost because for-profit insurance companies will end up left out in the cold. The people with those incomes are funding all of the opposition (by contributing to politicians, mostly).  Tempshill (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And convincing a lot of suckers to do their marching for them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While jobs are a defendable issue I don't think corporate or individual profit has anywhere near the same defendable status as jobs. Risk in business is a given. -- Taxa (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the second time that a healthcare-reform question has turned into a debate. Could we please restrict our answers to the facts of the question, and not to opinions? // BL \\ (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the answers were clear, there would be no debate, now would there? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Research has been conducted into "Computer-assisted medical diagnosis", but this is to aid doctors; I'm not aware that it can be used to replace doctors. The NHS runs "Drop-in centres" where initial consultation is with a nurse, who may refer the case to a doctor if necessary. Thus nurses are used to reduce the number of doctors needed. In addition, there was some talk of outsourcing the examination of some x-ray scans to Spain . AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

US Congress eligibility
Hello,

I have a question about Mark Kirk's future status in the House of Representatives now that he has declared a run for the Senate. The Senate primary is set for February 2nd. Let's say he runs and loses. Could he then go up for re-election to the House in 2010? Is that legal? And is it possible, given the various deadlines?

I hit up some layman congressional law books at my library and also tried flipping through here: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/senateelectionlawguidebook.pdf But no dice. Maybe it's something so obvious that it's not mentioned anywhere.

And thus I come to Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!


 * You can run for one office while you're sitting in another, it happens all the time. For example, the 4 Pres/VP candidates, 3 of whom were sitting Senators and 1 was a sitting Governor. You just can't hold more than one office. So if he loses the Senate primary, he can stay in the House, and can win the House election again, assuming he chooses to run. If he wins the Senate primary, then he finds himself in a P.R. bind if he were to simultaneously run for the House and Senate. I think his party would step in and make him choose, if he didn't choose voluntarily. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can sometimes run for two offices at once. Lloyd Bentsen famously kept himself as the Democratic Party candidate for the Senate seat from Texas, while being Michael Dukakis' running-mate in the 1988 Presidential Election. Had he won both jobs, he would simply have resigned his senate seat in favor of the higher office. In the case of Kirk, the only issue is whether he still has time to enter the race for a seat as a representative if he fails in the Senate primary; often, the primaries for both houses of Congress are run simultaneously, so you have to pick one race only. --Xuxl (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the both of you for responding. I ended up just calling Kirk's office and they very quickly and definitively stated that his running for Senate precluded the possibility of holding the House seat next term.
 * I looked it up and the filing deadline for IL-10 is Nov. 1, three months before the Senate primary, so that must be part of it.
 * That's enough info for my purposes, and I consider the question resolved, but as a matter of curiosity I wonder whether there's a legal restriction on running for two positions, or if it's a matter of PR and party politics.


 * Thanks again.


 * I think it's probably PR and party politics in most cases. For example Bob Dole resigned from the Senate (of which he was the majority leader at the time) when he ran against Clinton in 1996 in order to show that he was committed to his pursuit of the presidency, even though it wasn't required of him.  Xuxl mentioned that Floyd Bentsen ran for senate and VP at once, as did Joe Biden (who did win both and then resigned from the senate).  Biden had the assurance that a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement in the senate, although Bentsen didn't.  I can imagine it might be possible for there to be state or local laws that would forbid running for two offices at once but I don't know any. Rckrone (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are NJ municipalities statutorily required to provide fire protection
Hello. Are NJ municipalities statutorily required to provide fire protection for their jurisdiction? I have searched the NJ code and NJ cases, but have been unable to find any such discussion. Thanks in advance. Brianga (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess NJ is New Jersey? Unfortunately I live in London. I have no idea. So I'm mainly posting to get some discussion going that has been lacking thus far. It would strike me as odd that a local government would not be required to have some kind of fire protection. But I'm not American. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, NJ is New Jersey. Sorry for not being clearer. Brianga (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised. In the U.S., many fire districts (no article?!) are separate from the municipalities they serve.  Once, I saw on the news that in the next town over (in New York State), the fire department refused to put out a fire on a commercial property on which the owners had failed to pay their fire tax.  The fire fighters did hose down the neighboring properties to prevent spread.  Seems ridiculous, even negligent and immoral, to me.  --Nricardo (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note the reference desk is not for opinions, as this example shows it can lead to arguments Please attempt to confine your answer to the facts, thank you.


 * I spent quite a bit of time searching the New Jersey statutes for such a requirement and failed to find an explicit requirement, though I am not expert at legal searches. I would infer, though, that this has been left to individual counties or municipalities under them to arrange as they see fit.  I think that over the years, a public expectation developed that counties or municipalities would provide such services, so I would expect that arrangements (including municipal fire departments, separate fire districts, and volunteer fire departments) have been made by counties and municipalities (perhaps less than adequately) to cover all parts of the state.  Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliminations of two term limits
Since country like Cameroon and Uganda eliminate two term limits so Paul Biya and yoweri Museveni can run again. Can all country do that. If I was in Ghana could I just sign a petition to eliminate the two term limit to allow John Kufuor to run again. Is that legal? If two term limit is gone, does this mean Paul Biya can stay in until he dies or he can only run one mor term? Is this possilbe to some country protest to kick out the two term limits is illegal. i wish I've sign a petition to Ghana to kick off the two term limit to let John Kufuor stay!--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know any country where a petition can directly cause a change in law. A petition might be able to force a referendum, though. Laws can always be changed. The law could be changed to extend the term limit or to eliminate it entirely. Term limits are often parts of constitutions, which are usually more difficult to change that regular laws, but they can be changed. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article Constitution of Ghana &mdash; which appears to be a simple copy of the entire constitution with indexing, and hence needs a lot of work &mdash; appears to say in part 66 that the President of Ghana can be elected to up to 2 four-year terms; and later in the article, the space for "Amendment of the Constitution" is blank, so I checked this link, which seems to say that part 66 is not an "entrenched provision" and can therefore be amended with a 2/3 majority of Parliament. So, as far as signing petitions goes, this would presumably only be a petition to try to convince your local member of Parliament to introduce or support such an amendment.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know about Ghana is 2 term limit stands out, but i'm wondering if Cameroon and Uganda will completely eliminate two term limit or just give one extra term. I don't know if Kenya and Namibia can eliminate the two term limit, so it will stay stand. Is this possble Uganda will bring two term limit back?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would this be up to voters to think if Hifikepunye Pohamba should stay for 2014 election. Article 29 said two term max only. If voters in nambia wants Pohamba to stay could they ask the constitution to stop the two term? Citizens in Namibia can sign a petition.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As Comet said above, a petition is not likely to change a law; only a legisltative body (or its leadership) can do that. So, if the "will of the people" is for "x" to happen, then the people must convince legislators to make the change. As for your questions about what the various peoples and governments may do, that is speculation and our crystal ball has been broken for years. // BL \\ (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

is it possible for Israel to commit terrorism?
Some noted scholars accuse Israel of terrorism but this doesn't make sense for me, as Israel is a country, with a formal military. I don't understand how, even in theory, a country such as Israel could commit terrorism, any more thanthe US, France, England, or any other country could. My question is whether this impression of mine is correct, or, on the contrary, that it would be theoretically possible for Israel (despite it being a country and despite it having a military) to commit terrorism? If it would be THEORETICALLY possible (which I am having trouble believing) then what would be a (theortical) example? --85.181.146.169 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The term isn't well defined. It is often used to mean acts intended to cause terror committed by non-state groups, but then you hear about "state sponsored terrorism". What is the difference between an act of state sponsored terrorism and an act of war? There isn't any clear distinction that I know of. And then you get "shock and awe" tactics directly committed by states - what is the difference between that and terrorism? I don't know of any real distinction there, either. It is all political really - the words used say more about the opinions of the person using them than they do about the acts being committed. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See State terrorism. Some have argued like you that the term doesn't apply to states, they should be judged for war crimes instead. Personally I think the attempt to say that just because it is a state it isn't terrorism is deeply flawed. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many define terrorism as the use of violence against civilians. If you take that as your definition a country could be seen as guilty of terrorism Pollinosisss (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's usually not called terrorism if the state leadership perpetrates the violence. However there is the concept of state sponsored terrorism where the leadership of one nation provides arms and funding to a (probably small) group to kill members of the population in another nation. So were Israel to commit acts of violence on its own population it might be called "policing". But were Israel to fund some Jewish extremists that went out to set a bomb off in the Gaza strip (and then, in likelihood, denied doing it) that would be terrorism. As far as I know, Israel has not terrorised according to current definitions. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Kofi Annan (not a conspicuous sympathizer with Israel) got fed up with some of the perpetual word games and stalemated diplomatic logjams at the United Nations which prevented the General Assembly from taking almost any truly meaningful and substantive stand whatsoever against terrorism, and included the following language in one of his official documents: AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * United Nations General Assembly A/59/2005
 * 21 March 2005
 * Report of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan
 * In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All
 * [...] 91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law.  And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning.  It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians.  I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.  I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.
 * [...] 182. The Commission on Human Rights' capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.  As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.


 * What should we call it when Israel, the US, France, etc., undertake campaigns of terror? Historically, France and the United States have both done things that, if done by a stateless entity, would certainly be called "terrorism" (car bombs in civilian areas, for example). What do we call those, if not terrorism? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Illegal covert actions" is popular for that kind of thing. It may be fun to tweak the US's nose by pointing out that carpet bombing civilians inspires quite a lively terror, but it doesn't necessarily advance the debate.  The word is a club to beat those you don't like; serious people should use more precise and less inflammatory language.  --Sean 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That, however, is an argument for never using the term "terrorism", not for refraining only when states are the perpetrators. Algebraist 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the writings of Noam Chomsky for a lot of discussion about state terrorism, mostly about state terrorism by US-backed regimes elsewhere in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And Noam Chomsky might well have a case, if it is the case that it is logically/linguistically/philosophically/etc possible for states like America to commit terrorism. Which gets us back to the initial question: is it?