Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 16

= June 16 =

Arab Ships sewn with thread
I've read several Judeo-Islamic, Chinese, and English sources that stated the Arabs used to literally sew their ships together with coconut thread as opposed to using nails. All of these sources mention how frail these ships were. If this is true, why did they continue to use such a flawed design for hundreds of years? The Arabs came into contact with all sorts of people with different ship building techniques, so it's not like this is the only method they knew. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that the ships would be frail and that the technology flawed? The Kon-Tiki, which was held together by hemp rope managed quite an extraordinary journey. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "All of these sources mention how frail these ships were." And there is a big difference between a one man raft and a 20 man boom. The book I'm currently reading says one modern boat built in the traditional manner (all wood, no nails, and plenty of sewing) weighed 140 tons. Plus, I'm pretty sure there is a big strength difference between hemp rope and coconut rope. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not a one man raft. It had a crew of six men. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coconut fibre rope is properly called coir. "Hemp is the best fibre, of great strength and durability, flexible when wet and wears to the last rope yarn. Best is Italian then European, New Zealand and St. Helena. The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage. Coir is light and floats, does not absorb water, stretches before parting but very low strength." Alansplodge (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As to why the Arabs used coir over iron nails... It was probably a matter of cost and availability of materials. Coconut palms could be found just about everywhere the Arabs sailed.  So building/rearing a ship with coconut thread was relatively cheep.  Iron, on the other hand, was not found everywhere.  Deposits had to be located.  The ore had to be mined, transported, smelted, and worked into nails.  That made iron nails relatively expensive.  Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This makes a lot of sense to me. It's better to have a ship that can be repaired anywhere with a cheap materials and low-level skill set, than a stronger ship that required relatively higher-tech, scarcer, more expensive materials. Also consider: How many coir-sewn boats could be built for the cost of one iron-nailed? How much more buoyant is the coir-sewn boat? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found this snippet at Maldives: "'(coir) is stronger than hemp,' wrote Ibn Battuta, 'and is used to sew together the planks of Sindhi and Yemeni Dhows, for this sea abounds in reefs, and if the planks were fastened with iron nails, they would break into pieces when the vessel hit a rock. The coir gives the boat greater elasticity, so that it doesn't break up.'"
 * nb I'm not sure in what sense (if any) coir is stronger than hemp. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We may be bringing a prejudice to this, thinking as we commonly do about sewing and thread being used to construct nothing much more substantial than articles of clothing. There may be more to their methods of construction than meets the eye. I would guess that holes were first bored through the wood with some kind of an auger in a separate step, before thread was laced through the holes. And then I would guess that a protective substance was coated onto the "stitches" after completion. The thread itself may have been pretreated to enhance certain properties before even being used. But this is just guesswork on my part—I am not familiar with the actual process. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct about your assumptions. They actually had to sew up the sides of the ship before they even added the ribbing. The only thing they added to the stitching on the inside was vegetable oil. On the outside, they plugged up the space of the drill holes (not filled by the stitching) with more coconut fiber and some type of gooey substance. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reference to the strength of coir rope here: "It is a very elastic, rough rope about one-fourth the strength of hemp but light enough to float on water." Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * THE HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE DHOW has a lot of information about the origins of this technique which "go back to Egypt's primitive times". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know from wp:or that hemp is much stronger than coir, when comparing twisted cordage of the same ply and diameter. Do we think the Ibn Battuta is just wrong, or is perhaps coir stronger when comparing cordage of different diameter, but same weight-per-length? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a clue in the quote above; "The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage." Hemp is a cultivated plant - perhaps the varieties available at that time and place were not very good. Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought that Indian hemp was a synonym for the marijuana plant? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian hemp variants are the primary source of cannabis. They also provide fiber, but of comparatively low quality. BTW, Hemp states that hemp rope for naval use tended to rot when wet unless carefully tarred. This might explain why it was not used for an application where it is in permanent contact with water. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, because (pre petro-chemicals) tar was a product of coniferous trees and wouldn't be available in the Indian Ocean. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, more because it would be very hard to keep a piece of rope that runs through and works against an underwater plank tarred. Tarring had to be repeated over and over again to be effective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For an example of something "sewn together" which is quite strong, think of a suspension bridge. The advantage of this technique is that it's both strong and flexible, to allow for thermal expansion, wind buffeting, vibrations, etc., which might bring down a more rigid bridge of that size.  This approach also produces a lighter, less expensive bridge.  One potential disadvantage, though, is that the increased surface area of all those cables means more opportunity for corrosion (or rotting, if plant fibers were used), so continuous preventative maintenance is required. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical egoism vs rational egoism
What is the point of difference between ethical egoism and rational egoism? --999Zot (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the third sentence of Ethical egoism. -- Jayron  32  03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Jayron32 suggests is faulty. Ethical egoism is the belief that the interests of the self are paramount, even if hedonistic or subjective.  Rational egoism holds more narrowly that the self is the proper beneficiary of ethical action, but that values must be rationally identified, not merely subjectively or at the level of sensation.  Aristotle's, Spinoza's and Ayn Rand's philosophies and the philosophies of various but not all Stoics are forms of rational egoism. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Forms of ethical egoism that are not forms of rational egoism include Thomist Catholicism, Nietzscheanism, and the satanism of Anton LeVay. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Faulty, how so? The question is about philosophical terms which have a more or less generally accepted meaning. Something you check in a work of reference, basically, so you'll excuse me while I defer to reputable authorities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy both give succinct definitions which are equivalent to those in our article "Ethical egoism", whose first sentence in turn is essentially taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, under "Egoism". Based on these three authorities, I'd say the generally accepted meanings of the terms are roughly these: rational egoism holds that selfishness is rational, while ethical egoism holds that selfishness is ethical. (Salt and pepper with iff's and other formalities to taste.) In particular, on these definitions rational egoism is not a flavour of ethical egoism, for a rational act can still be held to be unethical, and ethics can be irrational. A hedonist rational egoism is perfectly possible, too. What Medeis calls "rational egoism" could be called "rational ethical egoism", and indeed has been so called. And so as not to leave it dangling, "rational ethical egoism" and "rational egoism" are compatible, but again, they are not the same thing.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Cont'd) Of course we also have an article "Rational egoism", where it is noted that Ayn Rand used the term in the sense "rational ethical egoism". Since Rand's ideas are popular, this usage may be frequently encountered. Anyway, Rand was not merely defining rationality by reference to self-interest, as "rational egoism" in the standard sense does.--Rallette (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rallette, that does help. Now lets take the normative ethical position to applied level. So according to Rand's rational self-interest robbery will be wrong, but robbery will be ok according to rational egoism, right?
 * And from the article Ethical egoism, "Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others." So ethical egoism approves of robbery, right? --999Zot (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for Rand, robbery would be irrational, and thus wrong, basically because it is ignoble and base, and nobility is what a rational being strives to attain. (As far as I understand her, and using my own words.) But Rand has a comprehensive theory. Rational egoism as such is neutral here. Ditto ethical egoism. Ethical egoism and rational egoism are fundamental positions, or classes of theories even, and you need a lot more before you have a theory of ethics that can be applied to conduct towards other agents. So to be clear, I need to answer your question in two different ways. If you mean to ask, "Is rational egoism (or ethical egoism) compatible with holding that robbing others is all right?" then the answer would be yes (imagine a very vulgar social Darwinism or amoral hedonism). But if you're asking, "Does it follow from rational egoism (or ethical egoism) that robbing others is all right?" then the answer is no (as in Rand).--Rallette (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. the thesis of Rational Egoism is no more that Egoism is Rational than the thesis of Logical Positivism is that Positivism is Logical. Ethical egoism is the broader notion that the self, rather than the collective, or the priesthood, or the state, or so on, is the proper beneficiary of moral action, and rational egoism is the belief that those values which benefit the self should be rational ones, not random or subjective "do whatever you want" ones. The rational in rational egoism refers to the types of values that benefit the ego, not the rationality of the moral position itself. μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, this is a question of terminology: not something to argue about but rather something that needs to be cleared up before argument can begin. The standard usage in (analytical) philosophy is that "rational egoism" is a theory of rationality. Probably the most common nonstandard usage is that of Rand (or authors influenced by her), by which "rational egoism" is a theory of what kinds of values are worth pursuing. My answer was based on the standard usage, and I did note the other usage exists. I hope this is now clear. And also, rational egoism by the standard definition does not state that ethical egoism is rational but that egoism is rational, that is, self-interest is the measure of rationality. This leaves open the question of what constitutes self-interest, which might be whim, pleasure, social status, divine illumination, whatever.--Rallette (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrases have meanings in context. There is no point in specifying ethical egoism if the debate is only about ethics--in that case you just call it egoism.  The point of saying ethical egoism is to differentiate it from other terms such as psychological egoism.  The same for rational egoism on a narrower scale.  The person who uses the term rational egoism is leaving the fact that he is discussing ethics for granted, and is differentiating his position from, say, what he would perhaps criticize as, say, subjective, unenlightened or hedonistic egoism.  In neither case does use of the phrase rational or ethical egoism have to do with arguing that egoism of any sort is necessarily rational or ethical.  (No socialist calls socialism "rational socialism" because he thinks socialism is rational.)  Rather the qualifying terms are meant to differentiate those notions from egoism in fields other than ethics or forms of ethical egoism that are not based on normative reasoning from those which are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With fuel prices these days, could it be cheaper to ship gasoline from Venezuela?
Venezuela's fuel wouldn't cost more than 25¢/gallon, last I checked. With fuel being $3.50-$3.60/gallon in my neck of the woods nowadays, would it be cheaper just to order it from Venezuela and have them shipped to my address?

Let's say I ordered 100 gallons at a time. The fuel itself would be $25. Of all the shipping options I have available in Kansas, which of them would help me come out ahead of just filling up at a local station? How much would it cost per gallon after all those shipping fees? --66.142.211.104 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused. There is more than enough cheap petroleum available from easily accessed land based wells for America from the American mainland.  The high prices are caused by regulation, taxes, and uncertainty, all of which are political issues.


 * The gas crises of the 1970's (1970s energy crisis) were caused by external pressures 1973 oil embargo. Iranian revolution, met by domestic statism. One of Reagan's first acts as President was to repeal price controls.  This caused the 1980s oil glut.  Regulation since Clinton (and with the complicity of GWB and approval of Obama) has returned to the burdensome level of the Carter era.  The solution is not to subsidixe Chavez, but to end the self-imposed leftist political suicide of the United States at home.μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Venezuela, and some other countries, massively subsidize gasoline for internal consumption. They aren't going to subsidize it for shipment to the USA.  Also they wouldn't even be able to refine enough to meet a significant fraction of US demand. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And, of course, Venezuela is rationing both gasoline and electricity, given that Chavez is using both to stay in power. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Long answer: I seriously doubt Venezuelan tariffs would allow for that to be economical (try searching for Venezuelan tariffs on Google... I'm too lazy to do it on my smartphone). What's more, with an industry like gasoline where the big boys roll: if there is a way to do something more economically within the law (and often outside the law... IIRC Iranian oil makes it to the US, just at a premium), it will be done.
 * Short answer: no. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not commenting on this particular case, but it's not always true that "Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused". Some commodities are rare, and are in short supply, regardless of how efficient that supply might be.  That's part of the thinking behind a gold standard.  A famine following a natural disaster has much more to do with difficulties in acquiring and transporting food at a cost which can be afforded by those in need - in such a case, there can potentially be a political solution to the famine, if the government or an international agency is minded to distribute free or cheap food at a loss, in order to avert starvation. Warofdreams talk 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reality has a way of catching up with people... including dictators. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a reply to me? If so, I don't follow how it relates to my comment. Warofdreams talk 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the export and import duties you would almost certainly have to pay (if you wanted to do it legally). The best clue that it wouldn't work is because if it did, people would be doing it already (and on large enough scales that the price of gas in the US would be the lowest you can get it under that method, so you wouldn't be able to make a saving by doing it). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to export and import duties, there would be fuel tax due to both the federal government and to the state of Kansas. Attempting to move fuel across borders without paying those duties and taxes would amount to the smuggling of contraband. If you pay the taxes and duties, there is no way that you can ship the fuel more efficiently or at a cheaper price than the cheapest-price gasoline available in your area.  The reason is that profit margins on gasoline (at the cheaper service stations) are minuscule and would be greatly exceeded by your higher cost relative to corporate oil companies because you would not be able to realize the considerable economies of scale that they can achieve.  Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Land worth negative value
I was recently thinking about the Silverdome, which was sold for a ghastly $550,000 at the height of the Great Recession. However, the Detroit area is rife with economic problems in government, so it wouldn't surprise me if the taxes are considerably higher than the purchase price.

Theoretically, this means that if the value that could be extracted from the land were even slightly less, then it would be unprofitable to buy.

Has there ever been a case where a landowner was unable to sell his land because the taxes or other governmental burden was too high? And in such a situation, is there a legal clause in any jurisdictions that would allow the owner to forfeit the land to avoid the taxes (thus turning the land over to the municipality/state), or is it conceivable that an entity would be an unwilling owner of land and forced to pay taxes and perform maintenance for property it didn't want to own (and would those taxes even be enforceable legally)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article Abandonment that mentions dereliction of property but does not try to describe the legal consequences, let alone do so for all jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions allow depreciation in property value to be deducted from other corporate income. A non-corporate individual whose assets are less than the tax levied has these possibilities: 1) Seek an agreement with the taxation authority on an extended payback plan, 2) Borrow money or 3) Declare personal Bankruptcy. Becoming fugitive or dead might also work. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Abandonment is actually an old common law concept that carried over into much of English and American statutory law. While I'm no expert on it, it's one of those interesting ancient law concepts that comes up considerably in messy legal situations to this day. The tax implications are largely an IRS question, and so a tax expert would have to comment on those.


 * That said, abandonment is philosophically indistinguishable from property and its philosophical equivalents. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your premise that the taxes are higher than the value of the property. Virtually everywhere in the USA that uses property taxes sets the taxes as a small percentage of the assessed value of the property.  If you buy a property cheap, you can petition to have that cheap price be considered the new assessed value, and that's usually a winning argument.  So if the assessed value is $550,000, then the Silverdome pays $29,519 a year in property taxes (at the link, select "Oakland County", then "Pontiac"). --M @ r ē ino 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are simply taking assessed value, which is determined by government agents, as a given. Of course such assessors] will find a positive, that is, taxable, value.  μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?
So the primary politics are distant, but the battelines are being drawn for the Republican nomination. All eyes are on Palin, Pawlenty, Romney etc, but none are on Obama because as a sitting president he is almost certain to be his party's nominee. My question is when was the last time a sitting president contested but lost the battle for nomination, not counting people who did not seek a second term (such as Johnson, though he could be considered an example). Many thanks, 91.85.140.182 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I can't think of any sitting president (who sought re-election) that has ever lost a primary challenge. Several (like Johnson) decided not to run ... and some of them might have lost if they had run... but that is pure speculation. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, and I don't want to start an argument, but... why answer, then?  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The list of US presidents that didn't serve two consecutive terms is fairly short - just read the Wikipedia articles on each of those and see why. --Tango (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it has ever happened in the Primary election system (which is not all that old, all things considered). As you noted, there have been times when a sitting President was eligible for re-election and declined to stand (indeed, before Franklin Delano Roosevelt, every two-term president voluntarily meets this requriement out of tradition), however I don't know of a case where a sitting President, since the Primary system was put into place (the first proper primary election occured in Oregon in 1910, see United_States_presidential_primary).  There have, however, been cases where a sitting president did not receive his party's nomination, depending on how you define "party".  Andrew Johnson was nominally a Democrat, but was officially the member of a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans known as the "National Union".  The National Union failed to materialize as an actual political party, he sought the nomination from the Democratic Party, his former party before the civil war.  He did not receive it.  See 1868 Democratic National Convention.  Also see John Tyler who bolted the Democratic-Republican Party to join the Whigs in 1836, and was elected as the Whig Vice President in 1840.  He became President on the death of William Henry Harrison, and quickly became so disliked that he was thrown out of the Whig party shortly thereafter (see John_Tyler).  He was essentially partyless for the rest of his Presidency, and though he attempted to form a break-away party and run for the Presidency at its helm in 1844, he ultimately withdrew from the 1844 election and supported the Democratic Party candidate, James K. Polk.  See United_States_presidential_election,_1844.  It should be noted that neither Tyler nor Johnson were ever elected as Presidents in their own right, both ascended to the Presidency on the death of their predecessors, and neither were very popular men.  -- Jayron  32  15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There any number of "what ifs" that are interesting to speculate on... would Charles Cotesworth Pinckney have defeated John Adams if the Federalist Party had held a primary before the election of 1800? If Teddy Roosevelt had run for a (third) term in 1908, would William Taft have run in opposition (and who would have won if there had been a primary system)? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If I take your question, "When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?", exactly as you worded it, then the answer is June 8, 1976, when Governor Reagan defeated President Ford in the California primary. I think that the first time that a sitting president lost a primary challenge would be April 2, 1968, when Senator McCarthy beat President Johnson in Wisconsin.  Before the 1960s, there were very, very few primaries -- caucuses and conventions, yes, but not many primaries.--M @ r ē ino 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past, (before primaries) in my home state, national convention delegates were selected in state party conventions. The state party convention delegates were in turn chosen in county caucuses (which were not widely publicized), in which all persons (might have been restricted to registered voters) who wished to do so attended a meeting at some location such as the county courthouse and "caucussed." Typically officeholders from the party in the county their friends and families, and persons from the party holding patronage jobs and their families and friends were establishment presence to swamp any random citizens  who showed up, but if there were sufficient dissidents(activists or persons paid to show up by some financial interest) they would get a proportionate share of the delegation to the state convention. A primary resulted in a far larger proportion of the voters having a say. Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

online translator
Is there a online translator for translating Somali into English and English into Somali? Also, is there an online Translator where you translate Arabic into English and English into Arabic and at the same time it gives you the English transliteration of the Arabic text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.211 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Translate is the best online translator I know of. It does Arabic, although Somali doesn't seem to be on the list. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison from 2011 v 1991 & 1991 v 1971
After just watching The Silence of the Lambs, it struck me that the film looked "modern" e.g. clothes, hair-styles, cars, (although as a Brit, I am not that familiar with US vehicles) - obviously some of the technology was a give-away.

However, if you look at a movie from 20 years prior to this "time" e.g. Dirty Harry, the difference is astonishing, the clothes, fashions, vehicles and also casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated"

Another more extreme example would be Back To The Future

Marty McFly travels from 1985 to 1955, which is another world to him, but to me, 1985 (26 years ago) seems very similar to today


 * The clothes Marty wears could be "normal" for 2011 (but note he had to get changed into 50's "gear")
 * Marty's haircut is passable for modern-day style
 * Van Halen (played in the movie) are still touring - How many bands from the 50's were still popular in the 80's?

Obviously the big give-away (as usual) is the technology, the Sony Walkman looks so old fashioned & the also the Camcorder

So my question is:

How can there be such big changes through the early decades?


 * Roaring 20's
 * Depression Era 30's
 * Wartime 40's
 * 50's as shown in BTTF
 * 60's hippy movement/flower power
 * 70's as shown in Dirty Harry
 * 80's - yes I agree there is an 80's style, but not that different from today

But the last few decades are very similar (apart for the massive advances in technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on certain parts of your analysis. Firstly, hairstyles have changed a LOT from the 1980's to today.  Men generally kept their hair longer in the 1980's.  Marty McFly's mop looks very dated to me; men today seem to keep shorter hair on average (though of course, there are men who then as now keep very long hair).  Secondly, facial hair has changed a LOT.  In the 1980's, men either wore the "porn 'stache" or were clean shaven.  Since the mid 1990's there has been a wide explosion of men who keep goatees; prior to the 1990's the only people who wore goatees were supervillains in comic books.  Women in the 1980's wore some very different hair styles, this big front poof was ubiquitous and unique to the 1980s.  Have you seen women in blazers with sholder pads or in leotards and leg warmers recently, except as an ironic homage to the 1980s?  The oversized sweater with the torn out collar?  I do agree that things have been relatively stagnant since the mid 1990's, with the only significant fashion trends in the past 15 years have been goth/emo and the "combforward" hairstyle you see on young hipster men.  The average person dresses and keeps their hair relatively similar to what was seen in, say, 1995 as they do today... -- Jayron  32  18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you use the word "stagnant" to describe unchanging fashions. I would call them "stable" or even "classic", as I don't appreciate having to toss out my entire wardrobe on a regular basis.  The more interesting question is why fashion designers, who obviously want us to have to continuously buy new clothes, have been less successful at changing fashions lately. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Styles of eyewear have also changed significantly, particularly for women. Business wear has changed: "casual Fridays" did not begin until the end of the 1980s, and were a very marginal phenomenon; nowadays, it's the few workplaces that have formal dress codes that stand out. This also goes for clothes for going out: most fancy restaurants would not admit male clients who did not wear a tie in the 1980s. That's disappeared too. Styles of footwear have also evolved greatly once you're outside the "kids wearing sneakers" demographic. --Xuxl (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to distinguish between "youth" styles and "adult" styles... a men's business suit from 1930 would not seem at all out of place if worn to a business meeting today. The biggest difference would be that in 1930 you would wear a hat with it, while today you would not.  And the hair cuts would be about the same as well.
 * Women's fashion has changed far more dramatically than men's fashion. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While business suits haven't changed, men's hairstyle has changed a lot. Men today don't use the same sorts of styling products like Dippity-Do and Vitalis and stuff like that, men's hair has a much more "natural" look today than in, say, the pre-1960 time period. The "slicked back" look of most men's hair is very dated to a pre-1960 time period. Hair in men from that time period had a heavier, greasier look to it almost universally. While men do certainly use hair products to style their hair, they get very different results today. -- Jayron  32  18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with most of the above. Also note that there are meta-answers as well. First, the joke of the movie was Marty being a fish out of water in 1955 so they purposefully pointed out and highlighted the differences for comic effect. The second will be your age (speaking to the OP). If you were alive in 1985, you'd be less conscious of the differences that have accumulated over the last 25 years because they're part of your general mindset of what constitutes "normal". I'd also like to add that I loved that series of films a lot more before I became conscious of the massive and blatant product placement everywhere. Matt Deres (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding The Silence of the Lambs mentioned above, I remember a behind-the-scenes documentary on it, and in it the costume designer for the film mentioned that she specifically strove for more ageless clothing for everyone, rather than what would have been characteristic of the early 1990s. Costume designers and hair stylists in Hollywood often face this choice: Do I make the actors look snazzy (but possibly ephemeral) or timeless? Just look at the recent Lord of the Rings series. One of the reasons all the male actors have very long hair (rather than something more contemporary) is so that kids will be able to watch the films thirty-five years from now without laughing at (what would by then be) ridiculous early twenty-first century hairdos. My guess is that around the advent of home cinema in the early 1980s Hollywood realised that there's a lot of money to be made on old films, and consequently started taking more care to make many (but not all) new films more timeless with regards to clothes and haircuts. Gabbe (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, one of the things which "dates" the original "Star Trek" series is how stuck in the 1960s all of the hairstyles and costumes are. How many of the alien species have females which look like 1960s Go-Go dancers, just painted green or something.  Uhura's beehive belongs squarely in the 1960s.  By the time they got to the Next Generation and later series, the costumes seem to be deliberately more "timeless" as you note; which is why episodes of ST:TNG and ST:DSN seem to stand up much better in terms of seeming more realistic, you can't look at an episode in ST:TNG and say "That is so 1989", the way you can say "That is so 1969" with the original series.  You could air The Next Generation today and it would blend in just fine.  It's not like there weren't contemporary styles they could have used which would have dated the show, but they deliberately chose clothes which are harder to place in a specific era.  -- Jayron  32  21:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated" in 1971 films compared to 1991, it could be that the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, into the 70s, caused a huge change in general attitudes towards women and non-white Americans in general. Some relevant links might be African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), Native American civil rights, etc, and, I'm not sure what page best describes the "womens civil rights movement" of the era, but perhaps Second-wave feminism? Anyway, while I think Back to the Future purposefully portrayed a caricatured, stereotyped past, as do many films showing past eras, there were some major, historic changes with regard to racism and sexism during the middle 20th century. Pfly (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you look at it. In 1991, few people had heard of the Internet or cellphones. Cars were boxier, few people had SUVs and no one had hybrids. U.S. television was still dominated by the traditional big three networks, which aired programs like Full House, Home Improvement and Growing Pains. Number-one singles included works by Wilson Phillips, Amy Grant and Roxette. The Soviet Union was still around. Terrorism had not been a major issue in the U.S. for nearly 70 years. People were still being prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S. South Africa still had apartheid. It was in some ways a very different time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Domestic and international terrorism were both actually major issues for Americans (in the sense that it was covered in the media extensively) in the 1970s and the 1980s. The level of domestic terrorism in the 1970s was actually quite astounding by modern standards — the number of politically motivated bombings, for example, was at an all time high for the US. (Not Islamic — it was far left, far right. Weathermen, John Birch, and Puerto Rican nationalists. Guys who hijacked planes and took them to Cuba. For a pretty riveting account, check out Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. Even the use of the phrase "War on Terrorism" is considerably older than the 2000s.) In the 1980s you start to see Islamic terrorism against the US abroad — the 1983 United States embassy bombing being perhaps the most significant. Anyway, all of this is just to point out that terrorism did not just pop out of nowhere for Americans in the 1990s or the 2000s. If you don't count Southern Civil Rights related terrorism, you see it mostly pop out of nowhere in the early 1970s. If you count church bombings, etc., as terrorism, then it goes back a lot further, with a lot of national attention to the issue in the 1960s. A pretty useful barometer are the number of times terrorism as an issue appeared on the cover of Time magazine. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it's not true that few people had heard of cellphones? In the UK, one of the stereotypes of yuppies in the 1980s was conspicuously using a very large mobile phone which probably only worked in the centre of a few major cities. Warofdreams talk 09:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A classic example of this is the beach cell phone scene from Wall Street. Cell phones were certainly known but they were not extremely common amongst the middle class. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the most drastic comparison would be the time period between the two major US events in the 1960s: the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 and the first manned landing on the moon in 1969. Looking at pictures showing the clothes, hairstyles, cars, television programmes, lifestyles of the respective years, it is hard to realise that a mere six years separates the two events. Even the music was radically different. From Kyu Sakamoto's tender Japanese love song in 1963 to the Rolling Stones performing Sympathy For the Devil live at Altamont in 1969!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people had carphones in the early 90s, but few had cellphones. Michael Douglas's cellphone in Wall Street was probably the first appearance of the device in widely seen fiction, and there it was a sign of opulence. As late as 1994, in the Simpsons episode "Bart Gets Famous," Bart having a cellphone in school is a joke. (A kid with a cellphone? That's hilarious!) I agree with Jeanne that the 1960s was probably the decade with the most-rapid change in the West, at least socially. It's interesting to contrast a picture of a baseball crowd from the 1950s, like this one, with one from 10 years later. In the 50s, the men were all clean-shaven and short-haired and usually wore suits and dress hats. In the late 60s, you'd see a mix of hairstyles and guys wearing jeans, like you'd see now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lillian Gish, whose movie career dated back to early silent films, said that she avoided wearing clothing in whatever was the current fashion, and whenever possible wore dresses designed along "classic lines" (whatever that might imply), so that her appearance would not be dated and funny looking when the movies were watched in later years. (This would not have applied to the many "period " or historical films she made). Someone above mentioned "Dippity Do" as a men's hair gel. It was marketed for women, and I question it being commonly used by men (unless they put their hair in curlers).  In the forties and fifties men commonly used greasy hair control products like Brylcreem or Wildroot Cream Oil, or as an alternative, oily products like Vitalis. The goal was to have hair that stayed combed and looked well groomed, as opposed to blowing around in the wind. Those more athletic or military with a Crew cut might use Butch Wax. Post Elvis, more men had sideburns. Only with the advent of the Beatles (circa 1964) long hair became popular (at least in the US) among younger males. Movies of the late 70's or eighties show men with "Big Hair," using hairspray or stiffening gel to keep the 'do from being flat. Hair gel seems to have more in common with Butch Wax than with Brylcreem, and allows hair to stick up oddly. Poofy hair and big glasses on women in a film suggest the 80's. In the late 1970's and the 80's after a famous Farah Fawcett swimsuit poster, it was fairly common for women in film to let the shape of their nipples show through blouses or swimsuits, something which seem to be banned by networks today, and very uncommon in society in general. Edison (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What we consider to be "the 60s" really ran from the mid-late-60s to the late-70s, and it was a freer time before the slide back towards puritanism and various kinds of political correctness. In the film Norma Rae, Sally Field seemed to be braless throughout, and it didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I used Dippity-do all the time to keep my flattop in place. Dippity-do most certainly was a male product.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ashes to Ashes (TV series) is a look at the early 1980s from a modern perspective. Social attitudes to woman and minorities were very different then. The predecessor, Life on Mars (TV series) looks at the 1970s, and there is a US version too.- gadfium 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

British monarchy
Why does Britain still have a monarchy? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So that Australia (and 14 other countries) can borrow it. (Just making the point that the British monarchy also happens to be the monarchy of other quite independent countries as well.) I guess the reason is the sum of its history. What legal power the monarchy once had has been legislated away of the centuries, but it's apparent that a big chunk of the population likes the ceremonial stuff surrounding a monarchy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's good for tourism and it's good for the yellow press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It also means that the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages when the monarchy was created. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because without it, you would have no-one to blame for the emptiness and failure of your life. You really have become very boring. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What? I'm not British. I'm opposed to all monarchies (and authoritarian governments in general), but the British monarchy is the most well-known. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then go and stand on a street-corner somewhere and mumble at passers-by. If you're not British, what the hell do you imagine it has to do with you? DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should only South Africans have opposed the apartheid? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The British monarchy is hardly authoritarian. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who imagines that the modern British monarchy is in any way comparable to apartheid is someone who knows nothing of politics. Nothing whatsoever. This is a reference desk, not a soapbox for idiots. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duncan, please cool it. If you can't provide a welcoming environment, do not post here at all.  Rebut disagreeable statements with facts and references, not personal abuse.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a perennial troll, and I think my assessment of their political nous was if anything rather generous. DuncanHill (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, you know the rules as well as anyone, Duncan. Don't descend to their level, basically.  What's the point of having highly developed and hallowed traditions like the monarchy, with all their complex paraphernalia and customs, if individual subjects are still going to behave like troglodytes in their intercourse with their fellow humans.  We have to show there's a better way than calling people "idiots", otherwise what's the last 10,000 years of progress all been about? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than challenging the existence of the monarchy because it's evil, like Apartheid, a more sane approach might be to look at the cost. For the other nations who use that monarchy but don't pay for it, such as Canada and Australia, it more a matter of principle. Republicans in Australia (not the American kind, argue that they should have an Australian as head of state. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mention the costs of having a royal family. Arguably (depending on how you do the accounting), the Brits actually take in more money from the royal family than they pay out.  Why?  Because the royal estate has agreed to forfeit the earnings from the Crown Estate (about 200 million pounds each year), in exchange for being supported by the government through the Civil list.  The monarchy "officially" costs about 40 million pounds, although unofficially, they cost a bit more, due to security and such, coming in at around 100 million pounds, depending on the source.  This arrangement has been around since George III of the United Kingdom surrendered the income of the crown estates to the government (in return for an annuity from the government), at which point in time the crown estate was making relatively little income.  Buddy431 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like you say, that depends a lot on how you do the accounting. The Crown Estate is now owned by the government (Under the umbrella of The Crown) and not the royal family itself. It would continue to produce that 200M pounds per year even if the government dispensed with the monarchy and cut all ties with the royal family. APL (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Republicanism in the United Kingdom: popular support for a republic is still lacking, as indicated by Ipsos MORI polling. Meph talk 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC).


 * In response to the comment "the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages", I have two words: indoor plumbing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and these days they have TV to watch the royals. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Britain doesn't have a Monarchy. It has a pseudo-Monarchy imposed by parliament, as a way of giving a bogus historical 'continuity' to a system in flux. As has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, if the 'Monarch' looks like being an embarrassment, parliament finds an excuse to get rid of him. This system works well for all concerned (i.e. the ruling class in general), as long as nobody admits to the reality of the situation. Occasionally, this can get a bit awkward (usually when a Monarch says something the general population likes more than the elite), but since it is in all concerneds' interest to pretend this isn't going on, by and large it all ticks over nicely. Of course, this has probably been historically true about most monarchies, so don't make any long-term investments in Royal Wedding souvenir manufacturing. Eventually, the British public will probably decide to take this to its logical conclusion, and have a talent show to appoint the next King/Queen. Then again, there are other countries that already find their Head of State that way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you aren't referring to the US? I like to think of the British Monarchy as kind of a living, government-funded National Park. Or maybe National Zoo would be a better comparison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to understand the British monarchy, Gramsci's analysis of cultural hegemony is a good starting point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at the failure of the Commonwealth, Chartism and the General Strike for with Britain still has a monarchy. The alliance between the bourgeois aristocracy and bourgeois proper in England, the alliance formed between West Indies interests, Agricultural property holders and Industrial producers over corn laws did come incredibly late; but it came at last.  I'd suggest reading some parliamentary history between 1800 and 1840 for why the British bourgeoisie weren't generally republican.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as they have the Westminster system, they would need a similar head of state as a republic. Probably something along the lines of Ireland or Israel which is sort of the same thing but with politicians who may not be as respected by citizens who aren't partisans of the same party. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On Parliament's control over the monarch, is it true that the monarch cannot even abdicate without Parliament's consent? That is, Parliament can "appoint" and "fire" the monarch, but the monarch must serve and cannot just up and quit? If so, or even close to so, it sounds more like a figurehead or even a puppet. Or is it not known? Is one of those "hasn't been tried so who knows?" kinda things? Pfly (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That certainly has the germ of truth in it, Pfly. The last time it was an issue was when King Edward VIII decided he would prefer to marry "the woman he loved", a previously twice-divorced and still currently married American woman, rather than give her up and act in accordance with the wishes of the government and the Church of England, of which he was the Head, both of which organisations found her completely unacceptable as the king's consort.  So, to get her, he had to abdicate.  But he could not decide unilaterally to just quit at a time of his own choosing.  No, it required an act of parliament to change the law to enable him to do this, and his abdication came into effect only when he gave Royal Assent to the abdication bill that had been passed by the Parliament. But at the same time, the government cannot just select some citizen at random and decide they will forthwith be the monarch, like it or not. No, it's a lot more rigidly controlled than that.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now, he had to do all that to make it legal and proper. He no doubt wanted it to be legal and proper because, let's be honest, he wasn't really inclined to just cut his ties to the aristocracy altogether and go get an honest job.  Would have been a better story if he had been, but it is what it is.
 * But suppose he really hadn't cared? Suppose he had just said, you can pass or not pass whatever laws you like, but I decline to be king?  What exactly could they have done about it?  Cut off his head?  --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He could have declined to carry out the duties of king, but he could not unilaterally decline to be king. The law says who is the monarch, and only another law can change that.  Cutting off the head of a monarch for treason against the state has a precedent in England - King Charles I of England.  I decline to speculate about how this might have played out in Edward VIII's case.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And another law couldn't change unless the monarch gave royal assent to it. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the last time a British monarch refused to assent to a bill was in 1707. I seriously doubt they'd get away with it; or at the very least, a workaround would be found: that's what happened when the Belgian King declined to sign a law in 1990  ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢ 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The other obvious precedent, of course, is James II of England, who fled the country - though he didn't have a lot of choice. 130.88.134.136 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While the monarch rules at the behest of the government, the government governs at the behest of the monarch. Some examples: The government defines the extent of the monarch power to rule.  The monarch attends a state opening of parliament every year in which the monarch reads out a speech written by the government.  At election time the outgoing prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to hold a general election and after the vote the new prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to form a government - I'm not aware of any occasion when the monarch has said 'no' or even if they are allowed to say no.  As for why we "...still have a monarchy", we tried a couple of alternatives but found it not to our liking.  Astronaut (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Reserve power, George V considered refusing to dissolve Parliament in 1910, but ultimately did agree. The Lascelles Principles cover the grounds on which a Prime Minister might be advised to do so, in future.  William IV was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament against the government's wishes - see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nitpick on one of Astronaut's points: the (soon-to-be) PM doesn't ask permission: the monarch asks the PM to form a government; as here - "Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new Government and I have accepted." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that kind of a formality? I mean, what if Lizzie said to the PM, "Oh, do whatever you want... your call." What would happen then? A constitutional crisis? Or just a good laugh over tea at the Palace? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be permission to do whatever he liked. Now, in a situation where the incumbent government is defeated, the Queen invites the leader of the majority party to form a new government, to succeed the incumbent government, which has remained in office in caretaker mode until then.  If the Queen couldn't find time in her busy schedule to get around to meeting the leader of the majority party, the incumbent government remains in place.  Indefinitely, theoretically.  This is because the Monarch is an integral, if unelected, part of the Parliament - it's not just the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  People often overlook this fact.  But that said, if her delay went on for more than a few days, many people in high and low places would be asking serious questions, and "something would be done".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've kind of touched upon something that the OP doesn't see, namely that the monarch is not so much a ruler in the traditional way, but rather a leader who's supposed to be above politics. I recall a situation in Thailand some years back, where a similar type of monarch summoned the competing candidates for president, who had been conducting a very vile campaign, and required the candidates to bow before him and apologize for their behavior, on national TV yet. Now, that's leadership. I don't know if the queen would do such a thing, but I could imagine she would consider it, if she thought it was in the nation's best interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the British have their ways and the Thais have theirs (meditate on that for a few moments) . But as as been pointed out here a gazillion times, the monarch of the UK "reigns, but does not rule".  There is no sense whatsoever in which Elizabeth II "rules", and there is zero pretence that that is even the case.  She does have certain personal prerogatives, such as appointing people to some orders of chivalry that are within her personal gift.  But in the execution of her primary responsibilities, she is heavily bound by convention, which can have even greater force than law.  Basically, she is ruled to a far, far greater degree than she rules.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The monarch does have real powers but they are only used in certain instances where the course of action isn't obvious. Governors General, who have the same job, have dealt with situations here in Canada in the past.  Being seen as above politics is an advantage here.  It would be more difficult if the president were an elder statesman from one political party or another. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I for one don't want some Pop-Idol photogenic politician to be the figurehead representative of this country, who would inevitably be some kind of Blair or worse...Nicolas Sarkozy PR sleazebag who would need to be re-elected every 5 years at enormous cost, and, if we took the US presidential system on board, would be pretty much a dictator unless we had a major rewriting of checks and balances, which would then need to be re-jigged every few years. Equally, I'm not too keen on losing a system where for minimal (40 pence per person per year) cost, we get a for-their-entire-life-trained guide figure, whose advice has been noted as invaluable from Prime Ministers through every decade, who has contacts with leaders throughout the globe, and who has reserve powers that, regardless of whether they are useable or not, would be a clear flag that something nationally-momentous is happening if a monarch ever attempted to deploy them. You assume that elected officials should in every position in government - but that merely results in a lot of officials who are very good at looking photogenic and making backdoor deals and saying nice things - it's nice to somewhere have someone who doesn't need to do anything except discretely give advice and leadership, who is trained to be an expert at being a leader, not an orator. And especially when they are in no real position -thanks to the balance between Parliament and the Crown - to take total power. The Prime Minister rules, the Monarch reigns, the system works. --114.78.19.232 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because I for one don't want some Pop-Idol photogenic politician to be the figurehead representative of this country, who would inevitably be some kind of Blair or worse". Huh? You've already got one - her name's Liz Windsor. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lizzie is a pop-idol photogenic politician??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is on TV in glamourous surroundings very very often. The celebrity magazines are fascinated with what her and her relatives are doing. You can buy a lot of her merchandising. The only thing she dosnt do is sing. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By Pop Idol I meant a president would be yet another person in government based on a popularity contest.
 * We don't need another president, we've already got two: 1) that Belgian guy, 2) the Prime Minister. Whatever the Queen does, a waxwork dummy and a rubber stamp would work just as well, because she always does what she's told and hence is no more than a very expensive government puppet. France has a far bigger tourism industry than Britain. The "system worked" for lots of bad rulers in the past. I'd prefer having a weekly bin collection than having a queen. A lot of people adore pop stars as well. Many people cannot see past the lifetime of royal propaganda they have been subjected to. The currant royalty has no more right to be king or queen than I have. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people can't see past the end of their own nose. Reading your reply,: The President of the European Council is mostly concerned with helping coordination between member states rather than the usual functions of a state leader. For the UK, perhaps you'd like to read the articles head of government and head of state to see the differences between a Prime Minister which the UK has, and a President...which it does not. You must have some amazing waxwork dummies with over 50 years of top-level government experience coupled with a previous lifelong course of leadership training over where you live. Prime Ministers on the left (Tony Blair) and the right (Margaret Thatcher) have commented on how much respect they had for the Queen, and how useful her experience was in matters of national importance. Just because you're not privy to that advice doesn't mean it's not there, and exceedingly helpful and important. It helps to not feel too self-entitled, that you should know everything because you're so important to the country. The UK is exceedingly lucky that we haven't had to have the Queen contradict the government in recent times, however it's not guaranteed there'll always be a moderate, non-despotic government. A non-partisan head of state is also exceedingly useful in resolving constitutional crises; say for example in some crazy world the Labour party and the Conservatives were unable to gain a majority on their own after a general election, and they were unable to negotiate a majority with smaller parties. The Queen would step in here. I doubt a waxwork dummy could do that. A waxwork dummy is unable to separate the political aspects of running a country with the apolitical...unless it's very well made.


 * I concede that a waxwork dummy could, with time, and a reason for citizens to believe in it, serve as a neutral rallying symbol for the country, such as the Royal Family represent (the Armed Forces are noted for their preference for the Crown over politicians (I'll dig out a cite later but only last year some retiring general said troops were always more loyal to the Queen than the PM), and the recent huge coverage of the royal wedding showed that public feeling is still there (TV and newspaper companies aren't stupid; they don't publish things if there isn't public interest)). Maybe the dummy could stay in London during a war the size of WW2 as the Queen did? Or fly frontline RAF missions in the Falklands? Intangible things like a national symbol are often sadly forgotten, despite their high value. The UK doesn't use the flag as a rallying point like the Americans, or an idea like the French, and what replacement do you have ready-manufactured? These things can't just be pumped out. National identity is a very human feeling that can't just be ignored. And a dummy wouldn't be as well known as the Royal Family. OR: over 50% of the foreigners I've met haven't heard of the last two British PMs; they have heard of the Queen. In international relations terms, it's far more useful to have a well-known figure like the Queen than a Gordon Brown (and the Royal Family are extensively involved in international relations). That's just good for the country. You say that the Monarchy is expensive...did you not just read the 40p/person/year bit? That's not expensive by any standards. And again, if you switch to a semi- or presidential system you'll need to spend money on elections, election campaigns...


 * What has the tourism industry got to do with anything?


 * When did the constitutional monarchy last work for a bad ruler? Cite needed.


 * I feel bad you don't get a weekly bin collection. I live in a tiny village in the UK and I get one. Maybe you could move here, the services are excellent in the UK especially by international standards, despite how we like to moan. And there's a Queen there too!


 * The important thing about the unelected monarchy is they don't have to be overwhelmingly popular; they just need to be there for the job they have to do. They don't need to trot out soundbites or insubstantial policies (at least, not to the same degree as politicians), but they still do state work. Which is very nice.


 * Overall your reasons seem ill-informed and based on vague prejudice more than anything, and a strong sense of self-entitlement. Oh well. I would say the best argument against the Monarchy is that it's unfair that one family, based on birth, is forced into public service, with an often hostile media, and has to have the law changed just to attempt to escape. That seems very last century. Maybe someone could volunteer their kid to be taken away at the age of 3 to be groomed for a lifetime of media scandals, overwhelming critical scrutiny and an inability to have anything approaching a normal or private life.--64.255.164.53 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The unfairness is to the Windsors themselves. They are born with this "royal duty" that they can never shirk. Those in direct line to the throne have to prepare to be the next monarch. They are in some sense "slaves to duty". Admittedly, the perks are pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They do choose to do it rather than abdicating. It has great prestige and great wealth. Even if they abdicate, they'd still have a "milionaire lifestyle" at taxpayer's expense. Feeling sorry for them is like feeling sorry for someone who has been born into great wealth or who has won the lottery. 92.29.112.168 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell us more about your raisin for wanting that plum job. :) --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have a Sultana instead. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me look at this from the other side. Why do some other countries not have a monarch?
 * France doesn't have a monarch because the last king was executed during the French Revolution and so having a king might seem to undo the results of the revolution.
 * Hungary doesn't have a monarch because, for some political reasons, the Treaty of Versailles forbids it to have a Habsburg as a monarch, and no suitably iconic royal family was found as a substitute. It tried to be a kingdom without a king for a while (much like Rohan), but that only works for short periods and only if choosing a new king is obviously in progress.
 * Nothing like these has happened in Great Britain, so it remains a republic with a queen. &#x2013; b_jonas 14:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)