Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 19

= April 19 =

Blue Dog Coalition
Why are they called blue dog? --Neptuniaumnut (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is in the first paragraph of the "History" section of the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they're cold-blooded boot-lickers? :-) ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dogs, being mammals are of course warm blooded. Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which makes it a serious health problem when their body temperature drops low enough to turn their lips/blood blue. Not that I've ever seen a dog with blue lips (unlike humans). But the analogy was always going to be a bit of a stretch, I guess. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Monastic Orders and Handwritten Manuscripts
I recently was in a discussion which touched upon the stereotype of medieval monks spending their time handwriting manuscripts, and I realized that I was unfamiliar with how closely that activity was associated with the various monastic orders. I understand that pre-printing press, a large number of the monastic orders were involved in copying the bible and other religious texts (among other things) out of sheer necessity. I was wondering if there was a monastic order that had a particular connection to the production of handwritten manuscripts. That is, is there a monastic order which has/had the production of (handwritten) books as part of its core mission, or was particularly know for its written output, or perhaps persisted the longest in maintaining the copyist tradition? To put it glibly, if I was to metaphorically refer to a person writing longhand, how would I complete the phrase "a _______ monk" to have the most historical relevance? "Carthusian"? "Trappist"? - I'm most interested in the western European tradition (so likely a Roman Catholic order), but I'd also be interested to learn about Orthodox or non-Christian monks with a particularly strong connection to producing handwritten manuscripts. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Copying of texts plays a big role in the life of the monestary in the novel The Name of the Rose, and the author, Umberto Eco, was known for his scrupulous research and attention to historical detail. The monestary at the center of that story was a Benedictine abbey.  -- Jayron  32  03:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out here that prior to the enlightenment, literacy rates (pretty much everywhere) were exceedingly low. Religious orders were one of the few groups that prized literacy (unlike almost everyone else, they needed to be able to read, and had the free time to dedicate themselves to the task), and so monks were often used as scribes for large ranges of mundane tasks, such as reading and writing letters and documents.  Transcription of religious texts was generally for monks who had withdrawn from more mundane aspects of the world, so it would have largely been left to orders that had cloister traditions (the biggest being the Benedictines and the Dominicans, I imagine).  This is also true of other faiths that relied on written (rather than oral) transmission of doctrine - Buddhist monastics (particularly in the Chinese and Japanese traditions) spent large portions of their time transcribing religious texts, and even elevated calligraphy to a form of art (much the way that Christian monks created illustrated manuscripts).  -- Ludwigs 2  05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All the major orders copied manuscripts, I think...although for different time periods there were different orders. For example, in the early Middle Ages manuscripts were likely to be copied by Irish monks, or in monasteries founded by them on the Continent. But when you think of medieval monks living together in a big monastery with vows of silence and chastity and all that, you're usually thinking of Benedictines. They were the oldest order, and Cluny, Monte Cassino, Westminster, Malmesbury, etc, were all Benedictine. Others, like Citeaux, were newer foundations but based on the Benedictine order. The Franciscans and Dominicans, the other two orders that I would assume people imagine when they think of medieval monks, were founded much later, in the 13th century. They were originally intended to be preaching orders, but they also wrote and copied manuscripts like other monks. (I would associate this more with the Dominicans though; they were stern intellectual types, like Thomas Aquinas. Of course there were intellectual Franciscans, but when you think of Franciscans you either think of poor wandering monks talking to the animals, or Friar Tuck. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the early history of this practice among monks can be found at Cassiodorus. Deor (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What if... ?
I propose a question of Counterfactual history. What if Great Britain won the American Revolutionary War, and the Thirteen Colonies remained as British colonies? How would world history had changed afterwards? Would the Americans start a new Revolutionary War anyway at some point in the future? Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is said that the loss of its American colonies led Britain to send convicts to Australia. If that hadn't happened, the nation of Australia may not have been created, and I might not be here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you would be here instead. :) I wonder, if the colonies remained British, how the slavery question would have turned out. The British might have abolished it, and then the south might have seceded anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of excellent forums on the internet, both on the world wide web, and on USENET, which seriously discuss counterfactual history. In particular, searching soc.history.what-if might prove useful (this from 2006: ).  There are a number of counterfactual books.  Some tend to be science-fantasy nationalist clap trap, some are whiggish history nationalist clap trap, the best are deeply interrogative academic studies of a proposed actual causation and its reversal.
 * Regarding the ARW and counterfactuals—you may wish to consider the Irish or Indian revolutions and mutinies against British rule as models. The long standing disputes between certain British colonists in the Americas and the British government indicates that there was running disagreement, which could result in further revolts and revolutionary incidents.  An issue to bear in mind is the failure of the revolution in the Caribbean, Canada and in Great Britain itself.  Britain was going through a period of social unrest in this period which ended with Peterloo.  The recurring social unrest in the UK (Peterloo, Chartism, The General Strike, The Winter of Discontent) indicates that capitalist social systems regularly go through local crisis.  A UK which still possessed colonies in the central Eastern coast of North America would be no exception.  The chief counterfactual question then is: would social discontent in British North America again result in revolutionary violent uprisings?  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One would picture that America would have eventually gained its independence, though likely through the mechanism of Dominionhood through Responsible government, much as other Commonwealth nations had, rather than through war. Instead of having the U.S. and Canada being seperate nations, one would picture some sort of unified nation which would be composed of Modern Canada and the U.S. east of the Mississippi.  Greater Louisiana would have remained a French posession; and likely would have become an independent state in its own right; so most of the Central U.S. would have been a French-speaking nation of Louisiana.  Mexico would be much larger, as the Mexican cession would not have happened; Oregon would likely have been British, either as a seperate colony or as an appenage on British Columbia.  Likewise, Russian Alaska would have remained Russian, and may have been a Russian territory until today.  So, if I were to draw a map, I'd expect the modern Canadamerican States to consist of all of Modern Canada, plus the U.S. territory East of the Mississippi along with the modern U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (maybe some of Montana).  In the middle would be the independent Francophone nation of Louisiana, and in the west Mexico would extend as far north as the northern border of California/Nevada and include all of Texas as well.  -- Jayron  32  03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The World Series would be a cricket competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. Cricket is an excellent gam. And most anything's better than soccer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Soccer? That would be the Superbowl. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. American and Canadian football are descendants of Rugby. So the Super Bowl might be a Rugby match. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Spelling arguments in this encyclop ae dia would not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We would have a host of articles needing some quick editing! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the World Series not being of baseball; not necessarily. There are British antecedants to Baseball, and just like American Football decends not from Association Football, but rather from Rugby, American Baseball decends from its British cousins British baseball and Rounders.  Cricket isn't related at all to Baseball, having a closer connection to the French sport of Croquet than to baseball.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we might have a World Series of Rounders. The so-called "Massachusetts Game" was fairly similar to rounders and was a bit more like cricket than the New York game was. The New York game won out, though. Maybe in this imagined alternate universe, the Massachusetts game would have won out. And then it would be the Boston Yankees with 27 Rounders World Championship rings. And Babe Ruth would have been the ultimate Rounders All-Rounder (in more ways than one, if he had the same eating habits). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * New York beating Massachusetts; doesn't that sum up a large part of American history in a nutshell? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yankees Suck. Sorry.  I'm genetically programmed to say that.  -- Jayron  32  05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So it seems. So in this parallel universe, Boston might have had the Erie canal, too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries; I knew I had that coming. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that "Yankees suck" and "Let's go Yankees" have the same meter. Art imitating art. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought "Let's go Mets" had the same meter as "Yankees suck" Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron, except that I disagree about Louisiana. If Louisiana had remained in French possession, it is hard to imagine North America not becoming a theater of the Napoleonic Wars.  Given the much greater population of British North America (including the formerly rebellious 13 colonies) at that point, it seems nearly certain to me that Louisiana would have ended up in British hands.  Another issue would have been the abolition of slavery in the British empire.  It was relatively easy for the British to abolish slavery within the empire when it affected only a few Caribbean islands.  It would have been a much more serious matter if abolition would have threatened both a second rebellion in the southern colonies of North America while at the same time threatening a source of cheap cotton for the industrialists of Lancashire.  I suspect that the British abolitionists would have had a much more difficult fight, perhaps culminating in something similar to the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, but with British troops doing much of the fighting against the colonists.   Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While slavery would have been important to the southern "colonies" in 1807 (when the British outlawed the slave trade), it was not seen as being quite the economic necessity that it became later in the century. Cotton was not yet King.  While the southern plantation owners would have been upset, I don't think they would have rebelled over the issue (especially if Parliament had approved a form of "gradual emancipation" and payment for freed slaves).  As for Louisiana... even in our real time line, there was some question as to whether the French or the Spanish owned it.  Yes, Napoleon sold it to the US, but he had to do some diplomatic maneuvering with Spain (then under French control) to make sure they went along with the deal.  In our counterfactual time line, it is quite possible that Louisiana would have ended up remaining Spanish. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The U.S. national government abolished the slave trade at the same time as the British, and all individual U.S. states had abolished it on their own before then (though South Carolina reversed course and lifted its ban). Given that many Americans (including some southerners) were calling for such a ban before the American Revolution, in an alternate history, the British ban would have been accepted in North America -- and even been seen as rather tardy. Marco polo is right: if Great Britain wins the American War of Independence, the abolition of slavery becomes a major British problem. There's no way the British could enforce the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 in South Carolina and Georgia without a fight. —Kevin Myers 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Napoleonic Wars... If there's no American Revolution, there's no Napoleonic Wars. One of the major factors in pushing France to its own revolution was King Louis XVI's open support of the Colonies during the American Revolution and using it as a proxy war against Britain.  If France does not have an American Revolution to support, it doesn't nearly go bankrupt, people don't starve as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Monarchy, no Estates General is called, no French Revolution happens, and no Coriscan artillery officer is given the chance to rise through the ranks and establish himself as dictator.  No Napoleonic Wars thus means no reason for there to be a Front opened up to fight it in North America.  Regarding French Louisiana; admittedly a Spanish-owned territory at during the 1770's, according to Louisiana_(New_France), the area saw negligible Spanish immigration to it; it is quite likely that when it inevitibly became an independent nation it would have likely still been a Francophone nation.  It may have perhaps been a part of an even larger Mexico, but I'm not sure the cultural clash between francophone Louisiana and hispanophone Mexico would have "fit".  -- Jayron  32  20:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we are supposing what if Britain won the war, not what if the war never took place (which, given the antecedents to it, would seem implausible), so yes, the alliances made for the war would stand, and the consequences of the war unrelated to the outcome (such as the financial cost) would stand as well. As for the Napoleonic Wars, we may made a comparison with the Spanish front: during the Peninsular War Spain was almost completely conquered, and the Spanish South American colonies rebeled. The conflict was initially between South American patriots and "loyalists", and Spain could only take direct action after Napoleon's defeat. Britain was never in that war at such a risky situation as Spain in 1810, but a similar scenario may be considered: if there was still an independentist sentiment in the defeated North America, and Napoleon was defying all the British power, that would be an ideal time to start a new revolutionary war, as the British forces would be divided. Cambalachero (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Living with unmarried partner in Singapore
I am an Australian about to move to Singpore with my girlfriend. My uncle seems to think that "living in sin" is not permitted in SG, but I cannot find any information to support or refute his claim.

Can anyone please shed some light on this topic?

Cheers Ballchef (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you really willing to trust your fate to anonymous internet users, to give valid advice on a legal question of this importance? You need to talk to a lawyer in Singapore and find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I live in a neighboring country to Singapore, have been there many times and yes, living together is permitted in Singapore. It is not a Muslim country and is pretty "open". You might want to check with a Singaporean lawyer just to verify, though. Bejinhan talks   10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah I forgot about the "no legal advice" bit. I was expecting personal experience responses though, and I'm quite sure my uncle is mistaken Ballchef (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Would still be a good idea to consult a lawyer about Singapore law regarding tax, residency status, visas, joint contracts for accomodation, joint finances etc. for unmarried couples. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the OP has looked at the article on Law of Singapore, and all the relevant links leading from that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people answering here suppose that the OP is a guy. Possibly, the OP is a gay girl, moving with her girlfriend to Singapore to live in sin, which could be deemed a serious offense in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.245 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm - Male/Male is illegal (though supposedly rarely enforced) but Female/Female is legal according to LGBT rights in Singapore Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The main question isn't whether you two can live in the same place, but whether your partner can get a visa to live in Singapore. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I have confused a few of you. Let me rephrase the question. I am a male, moving to singapore with my female partner. we are unmarried. We are both professionals and have our own work visas (this question is not about permission to enter and getting visas, as DOR said). I want to know whether it is ok for us to live together, as my uncle (who is not sure) informed me that living with a partner while unmarried is not permitted. Ballchef (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron's Attire for the upcoming Royal Wedding
On "Order Order" (a political blog) it says that Cameron will wear his "work clothes" to the wedding, despite being the Prime Minister. Link: http://order-order.com/2011/04/19/a-sting-in-the-tail-boris-will-wear-appropriate-attire/ What should he be wearing instead? -- Rixxin (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Morning suit. i e tails. Kittybrewster &#9742;  11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Morning suit is not quite the same as Tails, which usually refers to formal evening dress. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The old tradition was that male guests to a wedding should wear a morning suit (or "cut-away") for a day time wedding, and white tie or black tie ("tuxedo") for evening weddings. Such traditions are (sadly) increasingly becoming seen as "out-dated".  In normal society, it is more typical for a male guest to wear a dark suit and tie (ie "work clothes" for Cameron) as an acceptable alternative (for both day and evening weddings).  However, the Royals are not "normal society".  They tend to do things the "old fashioned" way... at least for ceremony. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * which is ill-mannered on David Cameron's part. - Kittybrewster &#9742;  16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably Boris will wear his best toga. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Latest news is that he will wear a morning suit MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, evening dress is associated with very formal weddings, and the royal wedding will not have dinner (only wedding cake and canapés) - implying a somewhat less formal event. Neutralitytalk 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That might leave Cameron a touch peckish (or esurient, if you prefer). He might have to duck in to the nearest Maccas on the way home.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will they be having cheese at the do, then? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly. Bouzoukis, on the other hand - I kinda doubt it.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hand gestures
Hi. I am a forensics-type person and I have recently become interested in a new division, where we have to give speeches, but without aids except our own hands. I'm pretty good with the giving speeches part, but I don't know what to do with my hands. Whenever I see great speech-givers, in such as Cicero (played in films) or modern politicians, or (let's face it: he was one of the greatest orators in history despite what he did to the Jews) Adolf Hitler, or even more experienced people who also do this division, they use very animated hand gestures to get their point across. How do I use hand gestures to similarly communicate my argument? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's quite likely you already do - most people use hand (etc) gestures unconsciously when not constrained (by holding on to something, for example) and most people (in the same culture, at any rate) unconsciously understand them. You might initially try ensuring that you're not inhibiting your movement by, say, standing at a lectern, and just forgetting about them (easier said than done, I agree) - a video of the result might surprise you. It might also allow you to judge whether some of your existing gestures (assuming you are indeed using any) are effective and others counter-productive.
 * That said, the use of gestures is a formally recognised subset of the skills of Oratory or Public speaking, in which one can be formally trained, and as you will see from that last link, various organisations offer such training: some of the links towards the end of that article may lead you towards publications on the subject, if direct interaction with some organisation is not convenient for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll want to take care; some people have idiosyncratic hand gestures which are uniquely associated with them and if you use the same gestures you may be seen to be deliberately copying their style, which could have an unfavorable effect on audiences. I think specifically about Bill Clinton, who used to "point" by using a closed fist with his thumb laid over the top, usually when trying to emphasize a point, as in this picture.  What you will want to do is find what feels "natural" to you; insincerity will show through if it looks like you are doing a deliberate, artificial motion which is unnatural to you.  -- Jayron  32  17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As one of the above people wrote, try recording a video of yourself and watching it. For some people, this can be squirm-inducing, but you'll probably notice things about your posture, tics, and gestures that you might not have caught otherwise.  Usually, the best way to go is to try to make your personal quirks and tendencies work for you, rather than suppressing them or adopting new ones.  Also, remember the size of the audience.  Big, dramatic gestures often play better in big audiences; subdued gestures tend to work better when it's just you and a few co-workers.  --M @ r ē ino 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Try practicing your speech with both hands in your pockets, standing completely still. Then do it again, and pace around, trying to keep your hands at or above waist level, and animated, the whole time.  Practicing at those two extremes seems to help me find a more natural middle ground when I have to come out and do it for real.  Like suggested above, during the actual speech, try not to think about it at all.  But you should have a planned "safe" position for your hands if you start to become self conscious of them, like interlocking your fingers, or closing you right hand in a fist...something that feels comfortable.  Anyway, that worked for me. Quinn CLOUDY  19:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

72.128.95.0 -- This was a whole area of training and stylized conventions in ancient rhetorical traditions. We have an article on such traditions, Chironomia, though it's only a stub... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Patriotism is more important than Universal Brotherhood
This is a debate topic.


 * Sorry, the Reference desk is not the place for debates. --M @ r ē ino 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can therapists ever correspond by texting and email?
If it's a long time until the next appointment but client needs to send a needed message, do you know of any mental health agencies that allow electronic client-therapist communication by texting and email? Pawnee Mental Health doesn't for some reason.

But I may have heard of some other places and contexts that do, but can't quite place where I remember it from. So in what areas, agencies, circumstances or etc. would a client be able to email or text their therapist? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I googled e-mail therapy and many, many links were listed, so some therapists are OK with actual therapy taking place over e-mail. Since they're OK with actually providing therapy over e-mail, they've got to be OK with receiving other messages as well.  In the meantime, you could call Pawnee Mental Health on the phone to leave the message.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe those that treat through email are not real psychotherapists, but only one of those new-age kind of therapists. 212.169.181.129 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This made me chuckle. The term "psychotherapist" has no legal meaning whatsoever in many jurisdictions. Where I live, anyone can call himself a psychotherapist - trained or not, new age or traditional, grade school dropout or Ph.D. In places where the term actually has a legal meaning, accreditation may only require as little as two years' training at a community college. Maybe look at the individual's credentials instead. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Our Psychotherapy article doesn't include any immediately-obvious material on accreditation, but Clinical psychology does, with the main article being Training and licensing of clinical psychologists. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the UK Privy Council make law?
The UK group Republic claim on their website (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/index.php) that the Privy Council can make law without a vote in the Parliament. The article on the Privy Council looks to be somewhat heavy-going, especially for a Yank with very little knowledge of the British Constitution. Could some one tell me if that claim is true or not? If true, are there limits on what laws they can make? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To summarise the lead to that article, the PC
 * advises the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative (certain powers retained - but I stress not used to any significance - by the monarch)
 * Makes government regulations and appointments (almost all of a boring nature).
 * Regulate public institutions, and potentially other powers.
 * Influences royal charters, which grant special status to incorporated bodies and city and borough status to towns.
 * Most of these are powers which do not need governmental approval each time they happen. They have been granted - or at least, are allowed to keep - powers to say, appoint to a specific position. They do not need to go back to formal government each time they appoint someone to it, and therefore can in theory act outside parliamentary approval. However, this is a common feature of governments worldwide, with the assumed suggestion that these powers would be removed if abused. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 96.246.68.89 -- A result of the way that the British system of government has been slowly built up by stages over the centuries is that there are number of ceremonial or semi-ceremonial institutions and personages who have theoretical powers which are never in fact exercised (and would lead to an immediate crisis if they were exercised). Bagehot's classic book goes into this... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that's site's logic a little confusing. Most republicans (that is, those in favour of abolishing the monarchy, not these other people) here would say that the monarchy has too much power - if if not used - or too much influence; they believe this is a problem because the monarchy is unelected, and sometimes goes against public opinion. This site, on the other hand, is arguing that elected politicians have too much power, and thus wants to replace the monarchy with an elected executive to take away power from MPs. On a point that might be interesting to the OP, some people have argued that the head of state (currently the monarchy) has too little power, not a problem in itself, but this leaves too much power with the head of government (the Prime Minister) at the expense of other MPs. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The constitutional role of the Privy Council is discussed in paragraphs 27-35 of the UK's newly-published Cabinet Manual – in essence, there are several types of "order" which can be passed by the Council, almost all of which are either authorised in advance by Parliament ("The Privy Council may make an order saying XYZ...") or specifically scrutinised afterwards ("Such an order shall not come into effect until it has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament...") – ╟─TreasuryTag► First Secretary of State ─╢ 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weymouth Rhymer
Dear Sir/Madame,

I have been seaching for biographical information regarding Mr. Weymouth Rhymer of St. Thomas US Virgin Islands. I found only one citation which described him as a former slave who was a carpenter by trade. Once freed he became a politician. He was an alternate delegate at a Democratic National convention. This citation also lists Mr Rhymer as the first African American US Senator. There is a Highway in St. Thomas currently named in his honor. Do you have any biographical information on Mr. Rhymer and can you verify any of the above mentioned information?

Thank you, Serena Joseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.28.81 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Our articles African Americans in the United States Congress and List of former United States senators do not list him as a U.S. Senator at any point in time. The "R" sub-article of our article List of former members of the United States House of Representatives doesn't list him as ever having been in the U.S. House of Representatives, either.  Using Google for this search is a little tedious because of the highway you mention; I tried excluding these results by googling "weymouth rhymer" -highway -hwy.  This link is a funeral memorial booklet mentioning Rhymer in the masonry trade.  Adding carpenter to the google search yielded this 1911 charity directory which lists him as the president of the Colored Mechanics' Association in New York, an organization that has left little mark on the Google database.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hiram Rhodes Revels is listed as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate.


 * The U.S. Congress does not have representatives or senators from non-State territories of the U.S., but they do have non-voting Delegates, see Delegate (United States Congress). However, near as I can find the first such Delegate from the USVI took office in 1972, see United States congressional delegations from the United States Virgin Islands and Ron de Lugo.  However, the USVI does have its own local unicameral Legislature of the Virgin Islands, whose members are also called "Senators", so perhaps Mr. Rhymer was a local USVI senator, and may have been the first such senator who was Black.  -- Jayron  32  00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rhymer was a Virgin Islands Senator (he never served in the U.S. Congress). He began his career as a municipal councilman from St. Thomas and St. John in 1938 and later moved to the Legislative Assembly and Legislature (whose members are referred to as Senators), retiring in 1958. He died in 1963. Here is a news story about his death on the front page of the September 17, 1963 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News. The highway from Estate Tutu to Charlotte Amalie was named in his honor in 1970. Neutralitytalk 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Final scene of The Grapes of Wrath
Was Steinbeck a pervert or did he just not realize how incredibly disturbing it is? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What's more disturbing? Breast feeding an adult man or letting him die of starvation? Exxolon (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course he knew how disturbing it is. Writing something disturbing does not make one a "pervert." --Mr.98 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the idea was to convey the thought that "to survive, we will need to do things we formerly considered unthinkable". Steinbeck was probably implying that a socialist revolution was needed. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire point is that it is supposed to be disturbing. There are lots of good reasons to be deliberatly provocative, and Steinbeck does an excellent job of it in that scene.  As others have noted, being deliberately disturbing doesn't mean that the author is sexually perverted.  You are supposed to feel queesy and unsettled by the act; but that's exactly why Steinbeck wrote it.  As others have hinted, however, its not a gratuitously disturbing act, it clearly has a message behind it, and if that message didn't reach you in the several hundred pages of the book that happened before the scene in question, you should probably re-read those pages and see if the scene makes sense in Steinbeck's overall message from the book... -- Jayron  32  00:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * An artist can express the perversity of humanity without being perverse themselves. In this case, as noted above, Steinbeck's interest is more than merely human perversity, but the perversity of human society.  Emile Zola's L'Assommoir documents the descent of a woman from tradesperson respectability through to death by physical alcohol addiction—Zola, as far as I'm aware, was neither an addicted terminal stage alcoholic nor a tradesman.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, some people simply do it for the sake of scaring the shit out of people. This is a favorite of mine; I don't think the members of Cannibal Corpse are zombies in tombs giving cunnilingus to female zombies, despite the album cover. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Have no idea what the ending of the book is, but from the comments here, it could be an allusion to Roman charity... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It can also be noted that there is a similar ending in the short story "Idylle" by Guy de Maupassant, from the collection "Miss Harriet" (1883). Steinbeck may have been familiar with that story, but if not, it shows that two writers can come up with that same image. I take that as a sign that's it's not a product of some terrible perversion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Maupassant was pretty neurotic; that doesn't necessarily make him a pervert, but he definitely had some serious issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall reading now and then the claim that in former times, men were more directly fixated on the reproductive organs, with the greater emphasis on the breasts being more recent. I have no idea if it's true, though when I think of old-time entertainments like the can can, it seems plausible.  Though I don't doubt that every part of woman has always been beautiful, I wonder whether the situation would have been seen as quite so sexual for contemporaries of these authors. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been a long time since I read the book, but if I remember correctly one of the themes of the book was how human life and human decency find affirmation even in the midst of desperate, brutal chaos. Symbolically, I can't think of a better way close that book than with an utterly maternal 'rebirth' image coming out of absolute tragedy.  I don't think it was intended to be disturbing at all (certainly not in the puritanical sense), but rather kind of morbidly inspirational. -- Ludwigs 2  19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar concept is covered in Susann Cokal's novel Mirabilis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on divorce and remarriage
Luke 16:18 says "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (ESV). How do those Protestant sects that condone remarriage justify the practice in light of this quote, and how do Catholics account for their prohibition on divorce without an annulment? Furthermore, are there many Protestants who don't accept remarriage, exactly in line with this quote? I've checked some of our articles, but they don't make the answer to this exact question clear. Please note that I am not a Christian, so I do not have an agenda to push; I just want to know. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been a member of churches on both sides of the divide, I can say that Protestants in general (in my experience) spend less time on individual sins than do Catholics. The core theology for many protestant groups on this issue goes something like this:
 * Everyone commits sins
 * God cannot tolerate any sin
 * There is no sin that faith in Jesus cannot overcome (i.e. you are not more powerful than Jesus, and Jesus sacrifice was perfect and whole and great enough to make up for any sin you have committed)
 * Given all of that, the individual nature of YOUR sins versus MY sins isn't that important; we all have them, and we're all supposed to be working towards a more Christlike existance by reducing sin in our lives. There's some difference between protestant groups as to the nature of God's grace. Some groups hold that you can only earn it once (i.e. once you have accepted God's grace, and then fallen out of it, you cannot regain it).  Others believe that once you are saved, you are always saved; that sin will still come into your life, but its how you recognize and deal with sin that makes you different from non-Christians.  This theology is often captured by the pithy statement "Being a true Christian doesn't make you "sinless", but it should make you "sin less".  In otherwords, perfection is an unattainable ideal, but you should still always work towards it.  Catholics hold a different view of sin, that each sin represents something that must be individually atoned for: If I commit action X, then I must make reparations Y to cancel out the effect.  This is part of the whole confession and absolution cycle.  Because you continue to sin, you must continue to atone for your sins with specific acts.  If you stop atoning, your sins pile up and God cannot let you into heaven.  This also explains the Catholic concepts of purgatory where you can work off your sins in death, and Cardinal sins which are sins which are so dire that you cannot possibly atone for them during your lifetime.  This makes part of the divide between Catholics and many Protestant groups over "Grace through acts" and "Grace through faith alone".  Most protestants believe in Free grace, that is God's grace is given to freely, and it cannot be "earned" by your acts.  In the context of Divorce, catholics hold that if you are already a catholic, you should not willingly divorce someone because this represents a deliberate act of sin, and fits with their stance on grace as something earned or lost through individual acts.  Protestants recognize that divorce is a sin, but its not "worse" or "better" than any other sin, and so don't dwell on it over any other sin, instead focusing on reducing future sins and becoming closer in spirit and in act to Christ.  (be aware that the term "Protestant" is not universal here, for every belief I explain as protestant above there are a sizable number of protestants who do not hold it.)  -- Jayron  32  23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify the Catholic view: Catholics also hold that perfection is unattainable ("we are all sinners"), but is the target. Catholics do not believe that one works off sins because God's grace is not enough: genuinely repenting of a sin is enough for God to forgive it, which is what 'confession' is about. However, Catholics also believe that how you act, speak, pray and think affects how close you are to God, and the state of your soul. So, if you've killed a dozen people for the fun of it, and then genuinely repented of it, God will forgive you, but the wounds on your soul are still there, you have to work to reshape yourself into someone who doesn't enjoy killing or want to kill! And, if you've genuinely repented, you'll want to repair the damage. Purgatory isn't 'working after death' to work off sins, it's a process of being cleansed, of all that is bad in you being burnt up, leaving only the good (eg, 1Cor 3). You only pass through Purgatory if you're on your way to Heaven, if your sins are already forgiven. And, to specifically address the original question, the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce with annulment, since it believes divorce isn't possible (eg, someone who thinks they've divorced and has a further relationship commits adultery). It does, however, include annulment which claims there was never a valid marriage in the first place. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I know many non-christians who would quote chapter and verse (me included). Many of us are also familiar with the whole book (though not in an untranslated form). This is because many non-christians go to school, have grown up in a culture where biblical references abound, or are otherwise not complete planks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the censorship here disturbing. I DO smell a troll. I gave reasons. I've seen similar suggestions on many topics, always without a very rapid hiding of the suggestion. Why the difference this time? Maybe Americans cannot deal with such a frank discussion of Christianity. I am now the offended one. Disagreeing with my view is fine. Hiding it is unhealthy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have backed me on not being a troll, and thanks for Jayron's answer. I was thinking of just not replying to the comment on trolling, simply because these things can get out of hand very quickly, and I am afraid that is what may be occurring. Whilst I have thanked people for the support, I'm hoping we can all assume good faith for the rest of this discussion, because I think there is much more to say. Jayron has definitely begun well, but there is much room for theology students and others to give more detail. I'm sincerely flattered that HiLo48 thinks my style would be de rigeur if I were a Christian, since it means I pay attention to religious discussions, and appear to know what I'm on about, or, well, sort of. Trolls, in my experience, don't use logins, they use ip's, and you can visit their talk pages to see what they are like if they do log in. They will be usually "one-issue independents" or such like, and it will show. Thanks in advance for what I hope will produce much topical discussion. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my apologies to you. And I do congratulate you on your precise use of Biblical quoting. But, on topic, I am always concerned when anyone attempts to use just one quotation from such a complex and frequently contradictory book as a "rule" for living as a Christian. Even if it is the only seemingly relevant one, most Christians treat many parts of the Bible as cultural or allegorical references of their time, rather than strict rules. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, Christian means anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, and includes a wide varience of both institutional theology and personal theology. You quite correctly note, HiLo48, that this means that there is an unimaginibly wide range of interpretations of the Bible, both passage-by-passage and in general themes.  Different interpretations of the Bible thus often differ to the point of being contradictory, i.e. group Y says that Book Chapter Verse means A, while Group Z says that Book Chapter Verse means not-A.  Given the OPs initial question, and desire to seek additional views, Christian views on divorce may provide some additional insight, but only a bit as the article is sadly lacking in comprehensiveness, even for the largest groups of Christians (for example, it mentions the most conservative Protestant sects, but gives no amount of coverage for mainline Protestant groups).  -- Jayron  32  02:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be positive about this, at least you've brought to our attention what an unbalanced mess the Christian views on divorce article is - maybe someone can improve it (but not me, I'm an atheist - though I've been known to cite the bible...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Andy... having an Atheist involved might be just what is needed. You can ask questions and make suggestions that Christians may not think to ask or make.  And nothing unifies POV pushing Christians of various stripes more than having an Atheist around.  It gives us common ground to meet on... something to unite against.  :>)  Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem very Christian to "unite against the atheists".... --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) There would seem to be several references to divorce and marriage in the Bible, but for once, I couldn't find anything, either by looking myself or checking our articles (or google for that matter), to create a composite or complex picture. They all seem to say the same thing (as far as I can tell), so I was curious to hear more. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points. Yes, there are Protestants who would hold to no remarriage. The Church of England held a strong line until the twentieth century, hence the abdication crisis. The nominee to be Bishop of Salisbury is married to a divorcee and there is opposition to his appointment on this ground. On the other side of the debate, I've seen a textbook (Ward Powers' Marriage and Divorce ) on this topic that raised John 4.17ff.: "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true." Powers argued that this demonstrated Jesus considered remarriage to be valid marriage, even when it was obviously a bad thing, as the Samaritan woman's reputation implied. Note also the Pauline privilege could be liberally interpreted so as to permit remarriage. Matt's talk 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)