Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 14

= November 14 =

What's wrong with "technocrats"?
In media discussions I've heard Mario Monti's new likely cabinet in Italy described as a technocrat government, in several cases as if this is a bad thing. To me, it makes sense to have experts making policy decisions. Is there something I am missing here? Is it that the usual career politicians are just complaining because their absence of practical skills is leaving them on the outer? HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Technocrat" has a variety of meanings. In the strictest sense it means a follower of the early 20th century ideology of technocracy, or a member of a movement in favour of the same.  This has a very limited ambit.  What could be wrong with this?  The ideology hasn't significantly adapted in the late 80 years, and it encourages two of the meanings below on a policy level
 * That a technocratic government could be a government of a New Class over other classes on a managerial basis—a Soviet Union. This meaning generally has the anti-democratic senses of one and two, but combined with the threat of a new post capitalist form of economic organisation; but, not the "socialism" that has been occasionally threatened by the working class in revolt since 1793 and that everyone has an opinion on.
 * Another meaning is that government may be more strongly influenced by not-necessarily-market political opinion, developed in accordance with current research—rather than being driven by purely market forces in the short term. For obvious reasons this freaks the fuck out of the capitalist system, even though it was the reigning system of government under Fordism in most places.
 * From the news articles I just read they're using a fourth meaning, "Capitalist managers who came up through government-NGO-bureaucratic means with credentials to back their opinions." This would be pretty much business as usual; though, Italy hasn't appointed capitalist macro-economic managers on this basis for quite some time. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's saying there's anything inherently wrong with a technocratic caretaker government. But they're not meant to be permanent, as they would lack democratic legitimacy to govern in the long term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true of any caretaker government, not just technocratic ones. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of us have articulate reasons to believe that no bourgeois government, or government at all is legitimate. Given that Technocracy in the first three meanings I supplied is counterposed to the modern ideal of representative bourgeois democracy; the idealisation here of an representative bourgeois parliament seems somewhat bound by an analytical framework that only legitimises representative bourgeois parliaments.  Given this case it is worth considering exactly why you don't like modern non-parliamentary societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual record of technocratic ambitions is pretty mixed. Superficially you'd think, "why wouldn't it be great for experts to make policy?", but having an expert as an administrator is a very different thing than having an expert as someone who is on call for consultation by administrators. The choice isn't necessarily "experts run things" versus "experts are ignored." There are lot of other models out there, such as "experts are not in charge of everything, but their opinion is valued most of all when it comes to making technical decisions." Whether economists are very good at actually running (rather than studying) economies has been a matter of some controversy after the vast majority of economists signed on to exactly the sorts of now-clearly-horrible mechanisms that got this entire economic crisis started. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article on anti-intellectualism might be relevant to your query. Vranak (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm reminded of this bit of Richard Armour's commentary in It All Started With Columbus, pages 106-107: "The fall of the stock market caused a great depression right in the middle of Wall Street. President Hoover tried manfully to fill it up. He used ticker tape, raccoon coats, pocket flasks, and unsold copies of books on technocracy." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Though to be fair, the Roosevelt administration was more about technocracy than the Hoover administration ever was. The quote implies that technocrats were blamed for the market crash, or that they were used heavily before then. They weren't in both cases. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A political leader needs to be able to lead. To use a military analogy; in WWII, Winston Churchill was famously hopeless at military strategy; His Chief of Staff (the military technocrat) Alan Brooke, spent a lot of time trying to talk him out of his latest crackpot scheme. However, Brooke admitted that it was Churchill who motivated the country and without him, Britain may well have lost the will to continue at several junctures. To Churchill's credit, he generally followed the drift of Brooke's advice. That combination of leader and technocrat was "the most efficient machine for the higher direction of the war possessed by any combatant nation" (Max Hastings). Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple answer is: Technocrats usually don't care about being reelected, and run the country acording to technical principles until they are replaced, so people's fear is that they they will do what they think is best for the country, not what the people want them to do. --Lgriot (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing what the people want them to do is not anyone's definition of leadership. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I may have been misunderstood, I never stated anyone's definition of leadership. I mearly meant to explain that people in democracies have been used to have elected officials that do what the majority of people wnat them to do. I have expressed NO OPINION about the rightness of wrongness of such a habit. --Lgriot (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Three words: Lyndon Baines Johnson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Most people would like their leaders to at least consider public opinion, along with other factors. A leader who repeated makes decisions counter to the will of the majority will be despised and possibly deposed, or even disposed of. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The great risk with technocrats is that the "experts" can be flat wrong. You could end up with something like the Great Leap Forward if you give too much power to one person, and he turns out to be an idiot.  Of course, in the cases of Greece and Italy, it's pretty clear what steps they need to take, the politicians just lack the will to do such unpopular things.  Hopefully people who don't care about getting reelected can pass the austerity measures which are needed. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good luck finding one. As Will Rogers said, "A politician may not stand for much; but you can be sure of one thing: he stands for re-election." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I would wish bad luck on Europe in finding "technocrats", leaders with the will to do such (rightly) unpopular things, the austerity measures which are needed - to be dispensed with and ridiculed. But they seem to have found the best flat wrong "experts" Monti, Papademos, Trichet, Draghi who are leading Europe into a Great Leap Forward into austerity, instability & poverty.  To answer the original question, these "technocrats", who designed and operate a unique, bizarre and unworkable monetary system are not the solution. They are the problem. John Z (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If austerity (higher taxes and less generous benefits) is not the answer, what's your answer to the debt crisis ? StuRat (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be a soundtrack to news footage? Could it be done?
To understand the mood that I would've felt if I saw the first pictures from CNN on the day the world changed forever, the songs below would portray it accurately. (In reality, I was getting ready for school, and the teacher didn't turn it on until about 35 minutes into the class.)

At the same time that you play this news video, play the following from these timestamps:

00:00-01:01: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4dYUn_PfQ

01:01-01:28: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkwgfmHWJfg

From 01:29: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwY69yJoW9w

The songs would reflect accurately the feelings about the situation in the news video. After "soundtracking the news" in the method described above, would you agree?

Regardless, why do I never hear of the news getting soundtracked? Wouldn't that increase ratings/viewership?

If there are news agencies somewhere on Earth that put soundtracks behind news stories, what are their WP articles? I'll look for their samples on YouTube once I know about them. Thanks, --129.130.236.178 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some reasons:


 * 1) Music costs money, since they would need to pay royalties.


 * 2) It would make the reporters harder to understand.


 * 3) Trying to intentionally manipulate emotions like that is considered propaganda, when combined with news. Viewers don't like that.


 * 4) Some people may dislike your choice of music, and change channels. Considering the wide age range of viewers, this is a virtual certainty.


 * What news programs do do is use their own theme song(s) at the start, end, going into and coming out of commercial breaks, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Visually speaking, the predecessor to modern newscasts were newsreels, which typically had music underlying them. However, that was just part of the "entertainment" package at a typical movie theater. The more direct antecedent of modern TV newscasts was radio newscasts, which also typically didn't and don't have music except as an intro, as with TV (as StuRat noted). The newsreels would be the antecedent to modern documentaries, which often have a music track. Documentaries are not newscasts either, of course; they are films, and emotional manipulation is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And those newsreels did seem like propaganda, not real news, to me, especially when they said things like "We'll beat back those dirty Japs and Huns in no time, with ships like these !". StuRat (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yakkety sax and "Guile's Theme Goes With Everything" your impression of a news item might be deeply and fundamentally different to mine; and, on top of that, we may each view it as undesired editorialising. On the other hand this raises the question why the Daily Mail and Fox News don't have sound tracks. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, with events such as the 9/11 attacks, nobody saw that coming and therefore they wouldn't be able to have music queued up. But more importantly, news and journalism in general is supposed to convey the Five Ws... objectively.  Dismas |(talk) 07:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are September 11 videos on YouTube with Yakety Sax playing over them. I know, I'm a terrible person etc, but that is pretty funny. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always have Yakety Sax pre-cued. Car accidents, Royal visits, unexpected public explosions, Budget meetings, indepth interviews.  As far as the bad person angle, at the moment the period between an event considered horrific by some and the dead baby joke ending "is it too soon for you?" is about 15 seconds. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This was done with retrospective TV series. I'm thinking of the BBC's "The Rock 'n' Roll Years" in which news footage of the year in question was cut with the chart music of the year. Very enjoyable. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a documentary, not a newscast. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh I did say it was a retrospective. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather enjoyed BBC News using I Predict a Riot by the Kaiser Chiefs as the background music for this montage of near-contemporaneous news footage and news images of "Greece's front-line riot dog". Hmm, I wonder if he's notable... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Member States v/s Observer states v/s Dialogue partnership
Dear friends, In perspective of "INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS",I have few doubts.Pls clarify them.
 * 1.What is difference between "member states", "observer states" and "dialogue partnership" in terms of power,selection in international institutions?
 * 2.In recent SAARC summit,certain countries were pushing for China's membership(currently it is observer) or atleast to have a "dialogue partnership status".What it actually means from Indian perspective as India opposed the move?

Kindly explain through examples if possible and thanks in advance. -Regards                                                                 Navneeth


 * I have added a couple of links that you can follow for your first question. I am not sure where you found dialogue partnership, if you have a source, if can help us to explain. However my guess is that an observer can listen and observe, but cannot speak officially in meetings. A dialogue partner can listen, observe, but also can speak officially in a meeting. A member can listen, observe, speak and vote. --Lgriot (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks a lot friend for answering my query regards navneeth

MFN status: Is it precursor to Free trade agreements?
Dear friends, I have few queries in the sector of economy:
 * 1. is awarding MFN status to a foreign country necessary to have Free trade agreement with the foreign country?
 * 2. recently pakistan awarded MFN status to India and they are talking of having free trade agreements.

what exactly does free trade agreement differ from preferential trade agreement?which one is advanced? regards, navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 09:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While the historical meaning was different, because of developments in the international trade system and more specifically the World Trade Organisation, these days Country A giving Country B "Most Favoured Nation" status generally means you treat them just like any other country. This is because most countries enjoy MFN status from each other because of their membership in the WTO. It is only for countries which are outside that framework for some reason, that it is necessary to specifically grant MFN status. Most Favoured Nation, World Trade Organisation and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade have more information.
 * While I don't have detailed knowledge of the situation between Pakistan and India, speaking generally MFN status and free trade agreements are not necessarily linked. Two countries can negotiate bilateral free trade agreements if they wish to regardless of whether they grant MFN status to each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Our article on the World Trade Organization says that India and Pakistan are both founder members of the WTO (it was founded in 1995), and that members must grant Most favoured nation status to other members - so presumably the two countries have accorded each other MFN status for quite some time. We have articles on Indo-Pakistani relations, Free trade area, and Preferential trading area. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the above for answering my query Regards -Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

parliamentary standing commitee v/s departmental standing committee v/s cabinet commitee in india
dear friends, can anyone please tell me : what exactly is the difference between parliamentary committee v/s departmental committee v/s cabinet committee in terms of their power,composition,appointment in Indian context? regards, Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

GoM v/s EGOM: group of ministers v/s EMPOWERED group of ministers
Dear friends, can anyone pls tell me what is the difference between Group of ministers and EMPOWERED group of ministers in indian context?in terms of composition,power,appointment? regards, Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Frugal person
What prop (or simple home-made costume) would you suggest for a 10-year-old who has to portray a "frugal person" in a school presentation? I came here hoping that some clever Wikipedian had thought of the perfect image to illustrate frugality... :) Edgeweyes (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Something which has obviously been repaired, or made up from reused items, such as a patchwork jacket? Warofdreams talk 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a wallet that has been locked in some way or tied shut? TimBuck2 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He might look better dressed in quiet clothes, not brightly coloured stuff. Richard Avery (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebenezer Scrooge is a prototype for this sort of character, so some of these might give you some ideas. Perhaps the nightcap and candlestick... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Ebenezer Scrooge is a terrible example of a frugal person. He's a miserly person.  The difference between being miserly and being frugal has to do with whether the money saving is a positive or negative quality.  Consider the antonyms to see how different the terms really are: The opposite of frugal is extravagant, while the opposite of miserly is generous.  A poor parent who clips coupons to put extra money in her kids college fund is frugal; a rich parent who has enough money to provide good food for their children but lets them go hungry and poorly fed is miserly.  Scrooge is clearly of the latter and not the former.  The difference is between choosing not to spend money on unneccessary items (frugal) and choosing not to spend money on basic needs (miserly), or does one save money because of an understanding of what money can provide (frugal) or does one save money for its own sake, even to one's own detriment (miserly).  Scrooge is clearly the latter and not the former.  -- Jayron  32  19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, he or she should wear simple, cheap clothes and footwear, no jewelry or makeup. If you can take a small liberty with the script, the 10-year old could carry a tiny notepad in a pocket and a pencil behind his ear.  Every time something that might cost him or her money is mentioned, he or she takes out this little notepad and scribbles a number with a grimace.  Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Other objects associated with frugal people include money-off coupons, buying special offers (e.g. clothes with "ON SALE" tags), savings stamps, and piggy banks. A Google image search for "frugal" or "frugal person" may help.  Scots are still sometimes stereotyped as frugal (using Jewish stereotypes is probably unacceptable), so something on that theme?  Also, someone who's thin and serious, obviously not gluttonous or having fun. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What about a jacket and trousers several sizes too small for him, tied round the waist with string? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the concept is too abstract for visual props. You might think about something more direct: e.g., a shirt or sweatshirt with "A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned" stenciled on the front and "Waste Not, Want Not" on the back.  That should make it more than obvious.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wear: a paper bag, like The Paper Bag Princess. Carry: piggy bank, recycle bin, advertising flyer or coupons. 207.107.246.140 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking a Jack Benny mask, although that cultural reference might be too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tight-fitting clothing that fails to reach either the wrists or the ankles, labeled as Ludwig suggested above. The outfit should be simple in order to call attention to itself. It should be made of a knitted fabric that clings to the skin, as though the person literally grew larger but refused to spend money on larger clothing. This costume does not literally signify frugality. But with Ludwig's suggested messages—I like the idea of messages on both front and back—I think there could be communication. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember when I was in school. Miss Preston gave my class an assignment: "You hear a word you don't know, ask your parents what it means, then write a story using that word."
 * I overheard someone say the F-word. I asked my father, "What does 'frugal' mean?" [deep voice] "Frugal means thrifty -- like, to save."  I read my story in class...
 * [high voice] "Once upon a time, a beautiful princess fell down a well. A handsome prince came riding by. 'Frugal me, frugal me,' cried the princess.  So he frugalled her and they lived happily ever after." Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And cheaply. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You could make a joke out of it and dress them up like a generic no-name product. Unfortunately, each store's generic products look different, but here's a sample of a generic cola: .  Instead of "Cola", the shirt should say "Shirt" and the pants should say "Pants".  Go to your local stores and see what the generic products look like there. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's quite a good idea. In the UK things like the Tesco Value range are very distinctive and well-known (and much parodied).  I don't know if there's an equivalent where the OP is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A prop to use might be one of those change dispensers paper-boys use, which is attached to the belt to prevent theft, and implies that they use every penny, rather than just tossing them into a jar and forgetting about them. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If this school presentation is in Britain ( a little archipelago of the coast of Europe), then a kilt and sporran may suggest an a well loved archetype  of a person who's careful with his money.--Aspro (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince Charles isn't well loved! :P Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But if he's wearing a kilt and sporran, he's not the Prince (of Wales), he's The Duke of Rothesay :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.25 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding a picture to my page
I would like to add a picture to my page and some information. I need some assistance. Thank you. John E. ZAMMITPACE — Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking, but perhaps Uploading images will help. TimBuck2 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just the same as adding a picture to any other page. So look up any page with a picture, hit edit, and examine the code to begin to learn how. It's a good rule of thumb to learn about how to do a lot of things on Wikipedia: find an existing example and see what put it there. Have a look at this too. Vranak (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Maritimepattu"
Hi,

What does Maritimepattu mean? Does it come from "maritime" and "pattu" (like in" Koralai Pattu" or "Eravur Pattu")?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that guess would be very probable. 'Maritime' cannot be an indigenous term. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know whether it's really "Maritime" or "mah-ree-tee-meh"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The '-tee-meh' ending really don't sound South Asian. I would bet money on that it is the English word. --Soman (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)