Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 20

= September 20 =

Bill O'Reilly and Vietnam,
69.86.208.28 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Bill O'Reilly was born in 1949, which would make him 18 years old 1967. How did he stay out of the draft for the Vietnam War? Was it a high draft/lottery number? There's nothing on his wikipedia page about his draft status, and there probably should be, given his stature within political commentary and his interest in Vietnam:

"After the taping of his broadcast one recent evening, O’Reilly opined on the current uses of historical narrative. His large corner office on the 17th floor of the News Corp. building in New York, with a broad Sixth Avenue view, is itself a kind of history lesson, its walls filled with rare, signed presidential letters, photographs, and lithographs, hung alongside a homemade Viet Cong banner and the last flag of the Republic of South Vietnam to fly at the American Embassy in Saigon."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/18/bill-o-reilly-makes-history.html?obref=obinsite
 * Wouldn't he have had a college deferment? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Like Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, and my own father, O'Reilly managed to avoid the draft with his college deferment. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have an article on college deferment - what does it mean? In my understanding, a deferment means you agree to do something later (defer it) but this seems to be an exemption? --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Conscription_in_the_United_States says that if your parents could afford to send you to college you escaped the draft while you were there. This paper provides more information on college deferment. The draft was very dependent on when you were born.  The draft picked up in mid 1965, and until 1970, the order of the draft was (1) "delinquents" (2) volunteers (3) people 18-25 in order of age from 25 down to 18 without a deferment (4) other groups, such as deferred graduates; and generally the first 3 groups provided more than enough people (so e.g. if you could last till you were 25 you were unlikely to be drafted).  O'Reilly being 18 in 1967 would be low-priority at first; Clinton being a couple of years older was at greater risk.  In 1970, this system was replaced by a lottery, but college deferments kept you out of that until September 1971.  After mid-1971 the rate of induction was in any case vastly reduced, and the draft was suspended in 1973, so if you could escape from 1965-71 you'd be fairly safe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was it called a "deferment", when it wasn't deferred? Or are you saying it was a deferment, they just never got round to calling some/most of those who deferred, because the draft came to an end? --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Draft deferments termed such because they are technically temporary. After finishing undergraduate study, you could be drafted again. In practice this was rare. Those who finished college during the draft period and who were still younger than 25 (the cut-off age for the draft) could apply for graduate deferment early on in the war, and later for occupational or dependent deferment. (From the same paper cited above.) The temporary nature of deferments was more clear in World War II, in my research experience. I have seen many records of people coming up two, three times before draft boards, deferring because of their connection to "vital war research". During WWII the draft boards were pretty aggressive and required very strong statements about irreplaceability to grant a war-research-related deferment. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that. Thanks also for answering the IP's question, as they seem to have forgotten to return. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The UC Irvine Muslim students
"The students face misdemeanor charges of conspiring to disrupt a meeting and disrupting a meeting." Is this kind of law common in the U.S.; i.e., would you assume that it is the case in any given jurisdiction? Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of laws which are somewhat vague and allow the police to break up disturbances. The classic is Disturbing the peace which is likely (or a variation of it) the actual crime someone you describe would be charged with.  There may be variations of the law in California dealing with various ways the peace can be disturbed, so the specific wording (disruption of a meeting) is likely one of them.  -- Jayron  32  03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP seems to be referring to this story from the AP news wire. To answer the question though, local laws vary. It may be a local law that interrupting a gov't meeting is considered disruptive to the community and therefore an offense. Dismas |(talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohio has a similar law (ORC 2917.12, "Disturbing a lawful meeting"). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See the article on the "heckler's veto." Neutralitytalk 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Bedel Bokassa
So apparently there was this former dictator in Africa named Jean-Bedel Bokassa who became notorious for giving diamonds to the former President of France and for ordering the killing of several schoolchilden, some of whom he reportedly killed personally, because they refused to wear a ridiculously expensive school uniform with his face printed on it. When he was crowned "Emperor", his Empress was Catherine, who was the favorite of his nine wives. But he was a Catholic (except for a brief period in 1976 when he converted to Islam). So how did he manage to have nine wives? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the key points of being a despot is that you make your own rules. Arguably, Bokassa violated various core principles of both Catholicism and Islam, but who would have challenged him on any of this? --Soman (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, he claimed to be the inheritor of various traditions, including African traditions by which a chief or any other wealthy or powerful individual can practice polygamy. He obeyed whatever rules or traditions suited him best at the time, and made up his own when necessary. His whole coronation as "Emperor" was a mix of Napoleonian and African practices. --Xuxl (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church may have preferred to have an imperfect Catholic than an atheist communist as ruler of the CAR. Not that they could have done much about him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From a Catholic point of view, nothing you do means you aren't a Catholic any more (as they say, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic") because Baptism is believed to leave a permanent mark on the soul which cannot be removed. However, any one of the actions you describe above are enough to automatically excommunicate him, which means no declaration of excommunication is necessary: he has excommunicated himself, and should be aware of that. This means he is out of communion with the Church, and remains so until he has fully repented in a way that involves ceasing to commit the sin, and sought Confession, and almost certainly he would need the excommunication to be lifted by a bishop or archbishop, maybe even the Pope. Since his sins were notorious, all Catholic priests would be expected to deny him Communion if he presented himself at the altar and they recognised him. I would be interested in any articles based on fact which discussed how (if at all) he practiced his Catholicism after becoming a dictator, and whether this involved pressure on certain priests. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that Joachim N'Dayen was the Catholic Archbishop in his country. I wonder how they got on? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently during the "coronation", N'Dayern read greetings from the pope. Other than that, I'm not so sure. He may have been religious as he wanted a coronation in a cathedral in Bangui and apparently during his trial he wore a white cassock and a cross given to him by the pope (at least according to a book that I read). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia page, by the time he died, he had 17 wives. That's a lot of wives. The fact that he was able to practice polygyny even if he was a Roman Catholic astonishes me. My point is, how did he manage to have this many wives? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you valued your life in CAR at that time, you didn't say or do anything against the president. He basically just did what he likes. As to what his religion had to do with it, you'll have to ask his God what He has planned for him in the afterlife! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I see what you're asking. From the point of view of the Catholic Church he wouldn't have been a Catholic with 17 wives, he would have been a Catholic married to his first wife and committing adultery with 16 other women. 86.164.60.149 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "unrewarded genius is almost a proverb" mean?
I read this is a quote by Calvin Coolidge: "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

What does "unrewarded genius is almost a proverb" mean in the context of persistence? --LijoJames (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase, "Genius allowed to go to waste is extremely common", in contrast with genius that achieves great things because it is combined with hard work and perseverence, which is much rarer. --Xuxl (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unrewarded genius is almost a proverb" means that people say "genius goes unrewarded" it so often that it has almost become a proverb. Like "Least said soonest mended" or "lightning never strikes twice in the same place" which are traditional English proverbs and just as difficult to prove. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is literary shorthand that is generally acceptable in its use. One gets the gist from what is said because of the similarity between the phrase "unrewarded genius" and proverbs. The similarity is that proverbs are repeated interminably and are generally accepted as being factual beyond reproach. I think "unrewarded genius" is in fact not "almost a proverb" because proverbs are presented in the form of full sentences. By contrast "unrewarded genius" is only a phrase, and that is why I am comparing it to "shorthand": I think we understand that the phrase is similar to a proverb in that it is often repeated and seldom questioned. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better quote, by Jim Croce:
 * "No matter how smooth I talked, they wouldn't listen to the fact that I was a genius. The man said 'We got all that we can use'.  I've got those steadily depressin', low-down messin', workin' at the car wash blues."
 * Genius. -- Jayron  32  22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The infobox at Thomas Edison has a famous quote with a similar sentiment to the full quote by Coolidge: "Genius is 1 percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration." Thomas Edison has some longer variants. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the nature of the original question, though I tried to answer it above. The question as posed was: "What does 'unrewarded genius is almost a proverb' mean in the context of persistence?"


 * I am puzzled because the quote from Calvin Coolidge above says that "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence" and "Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."


 * It seems obvious that the quote is saying that "genius" cannot replace "persistence". Is there a question as to how this can be a proverb? Is there an implied searching for proverbs that embody this notion? Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are trying to over-analyze the formulation of the question. The heading was only What does "unrewarded genius is almost a proverb" mean? The meaning may seem obvious to you but people are different. LijoJames was probably just trying to understand the Coolidge quote. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

History of pornography
Can anyone please provide some online references on the history of pornography? --DinoXYZ (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See History of erotic depictions. Dismas |(talk) 08:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW to DinoXYZ, history of pornography redirects to the above linked article Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Secret US intelligence budget
How is it possible that the United States intelligence budget is secret? Since the rest of the budget is unclassified it should be possible to work out as a residual. 131.111.195.11 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, because its a budget and not a check register. That is, a budget is something you do before you spend money.  Its a plan of how much money you expect to take in, and what you plan to spend it on.  The actual amount of revenue and outlay is quite likely to be somewhat different than the budget.  Since the budget is the prospective spending, the intelligence community can keep it perfectly secret, and the actual spending can be covered up pretty easily as well.  -- Jayron  32  16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the question is more, couldn't you take the full budget figure, subtract everything that is listed publicly, and end up with the intelligence budget figure? It depends on whether the defense budget figure is included in the full budget figure, obviously. Presumably it is not, or is hidden into gray categories (e.g. discretionary spending given to the CIA or military). Usually when budgets are "hidden" in this way it is because they fall into vague categories that don't respond well to probing. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but in the UK I believe the total spend of the intelligence services is public knowledge, but not much beneath that (overall number of employees, I think). It wouldn't help sabotage it, really. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The secrecy doesn't prevent sabotage in the US, either, unless you consider "public oversight" to be a form of sabotage. The only plausible argument is that a nation like Russia or China would be able to track the budget's change over time and somehow infer programmatic decisions from it. But it's such a vague measure of that. You'd get more insight into programmatic information from reading the New York Times than from that number. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the US intelligence budget has been disclosed for the next year, for the first time in a long while. See here. $55 billion. Ooga booga. Don't tell any terrorists! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful, that figure only covers half of the US intelligence agencies. Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true — I overlooked that fact. The MIP is still (pointlessly) classified, for now. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that what is secret about it is the specific allocation of that amount among various programs, or even the names or existence of some such programs. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is definitely secret. But it used to be the case, until quite recently, that even the bulk sum was classified. Starting in the 2000s they started to release those for the first time. And just recently they've released budget proposals in advance of actually having them approved. As the Secrecy News post discusses, this has been a major bone of contention regarding classification for awhile now. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see why, if the overall budget shoots up with no apparent reason, the public would question what was going on. For example, it might be a precursor to an invasion. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't actually impart any information, other than the fact that there was increased spending. You couldn't distinguish one crazy explanation from another based on that number alone (an invasion, a new airplane, a huge slush fund for retired officers, whatever). Anyway, apparently they've decided it's no longer a big deal, as I've indicated, and are treating it like regular defense spending to a large degree. Note that the real question here is why an intelligence budget should alone be treated this way — we don't treat our other military budgets this way, we don't treat any non-military budgets this way. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely that the budget is kept secret by including it in some other, larger, budget item. Which? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (I'm the IP address above)
 * It could be any of them. Increment the expected cost of Bic pens by a nickel, of bullets by a dollar, of toilet paper by a few cents a roll, and viola; you have now burried a $55 billion intelligence budget. -- Jayron  32  22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of them hiding funds in that way. They aren't usually that sneaky about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was just a report on NPR tonight about last year's Department of Justice expenditures for food items at conferences and the like; they were paying a going rate of $16 per muffin and a snack of cracker jacks and candy bars cost $32 per person.  You tell me where that money is going, cuz Otis Spunkmeyer isn't getting $16 per muffin.  -- Jayron  32  00:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the contractor who manages the procurements and logistics probably is. Hooray for no-bid contracts and the like. I don't find it likely that that's where they'd be "hiding" funds — it's actually too far out in the open, hiding it as "waste". What you want is to hide funds within bigger, vaguer pools. Anyway, I've never heard of them doing that sort of thing. There's actually a pretty big literature out there on government secrecy, black budgets, etc., over the years. As I said, it's not that sneaky. It's bland but effective at hiding things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The DOD has "discretionary" funds which are not audited publicly (but still have to be justified in executive committee sessions, to some degree). I'm not sure where the non-military stuff would be kept, but there are lots of places. During WWII the atomic bomb project was initially funded out of discretionary Presidential funds, later out of discretionary War Department funds. Wherever it is, it is likely in a big heap of other things with a bland, empty name, like "discretionary funding" or "special projects" or something like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

human "breeds"
Are people really subject to traits they have inherited (like violent tempers) that cannot be removed by surgery or drugs and if so could relief be found though messing with their DNA by inserting or removing fragments? --DeeperQA (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To put your question in terms commonly used: If nature influences behaviour as opposed to nurture (see nature versus nurture), will gene therapy change behavior? Well, as you can see in the nature vs. nurture argument, there is no clear indicator that nature strongly influences behavior. Of course, this can be taken to an extreme. If a person has a violent temper and you use gene therapy to turn the person into a vegetable laying on a bed without the capability to move or talk, was the violent temper removed? -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is pretty much what a lobotomy did. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Behavior patterns, in adults, are mostly hard-wired in the brain, so difficult to change. Genetic changes might be more successful in controlling how the brain develops, if performed on children.  As for drugs, a testosterone blocker should decrease aggression, but also has some side effects, like lowered sex drive. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer your first (embedded) question, the jury is still out on whether personality is mainly genetic or mainly a result of fetal and childhood environment and experience. No doubt, it develops from an interplay between both genetics and experience (or environment).  As StuRat says, to the extent that personality is genetic, a genetic intervention would have to take place very early, perhaps before birth, since the neural networks and other structures controlled by genes are formed during fetal and early childhood development.  Changing an adult's genes would have no more effect on their behavior than deleting a software installer after you have already installed the software. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the bad temper is caused by a hormonal imbalance, then you might not even need gene therapy, a hormonal supplement might suffice. Googlemeister (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, control over a violent temper requires sophisticated mental processing, i.e. frontal lobe function. Damage to the frontal lobe - even lobotomy - could degrade that and leave people more prone to problems (that article describes "irresponsibility", "lack of discipline", etc.)  So I am skeptical of any easy, general methods to reduce violence unless they remove the capability for violence in general, even in situations where it is accepted like resisting a hijacking.  (For that you could, say, cut the Achilles tendon or make a meal of the bicep muscle, or install a remote electric shock shackle, or some neurological equivalent action)  Now it should be clear though that it is possible to get people to exercise that frontal lobe and be ready to use it, whether by conventional discipline or some new teaching.  And it should also be clear that in individual cases, various interventions will reduce violence.  If someone is a cocaine addict, cure the addiction; if their neighbor's kid is an aspiring tuba player, gift the child an XBox.  Perhaps sometimes even hormones will work, if that is what is keeping normal self-control from working. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this question belong on the Science desk? Imagine Reason (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Most incumbents ever
What political office has had the most people ever hold it? - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the literally millions of offices throughout history, it may be difficult to nail down. Many Roman Republic/Empire offices were restricted to one-year terms, so they may have had hundreds of incumbants.  One candidate may be the Pope of which there have been around 265ish (including Antipopes).  The position of Roman Consul had a roughly continuous history for something over 1000 years, so you can find LOTS of people to fill that office (though its role changed drastically over time).  See List of Roman consuls.  -- Jayron  32  00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined toward the office of Member of the House of Commons in the UK — the UK is considered the legal successor of the Kingdom of Great Britain, which is considered the legal successor of the Kingdom of England, so the House of Commons has existed since 1341. Given its often large size (650 members right now) and its history of more than two-thirds of a millennium, the office of membership in it is a good candidate.  Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do you count an "office"? Wouldn't a single constituency count as a single "office"?  -- Jayron  32  02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was confused about that as well. It really depends on what Presidentman meant by "political office". If multiple holders are allowed concurrently then it's most likely the Roman senators. Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Captain Regent or Vice Captain Regent of San Marino is another candidate. Their term length is only 6 months. Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or if you're asking about "What political office has the most incumbents concurrently?" Then it would be the Chinese National Congress Delegates at 2,217. Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's currently more than 20000 local councillors in the UK. It depends what you mean by a distinct political office. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They all serve on different councils, though. If you count that as the same office, you might as well count members of the UK parliament and members of the Australian parliament as being in the same office. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's one difference: because each local council is different from the rest, a former officeholder is retired from being a member of the ___ Local Council, but because there's only one House of Commons, all its former members are retired from being in the same body. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The office of Lord Mayor of the City of London has been going since 1189. A full list here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the High Shrievalities are even older. For example, the names of most High Sheriffs of Kent since 1040 are known, and most since the 1230s have served for a single year. Warofdreams talk 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)