Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 August 28

= August 28 =

Why are the 2020 Democratic candidates no longer using the word "suspend" when dropping out?
I noticed that this US election cycle, candidates who drop out seem to now be willing to use a word other than "suspend". For example, Eric Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, and Seth Moulton all said that they were "ending" their campaigns, while Jay Inslee said he was "withdrawing" from the race. Why this change, and why did these words suddenly become "safe" to use? By contrast, in previous American election cycles, when candidates dropped out, they seemed to avoid these words as much as possible and instead said they were "suspending" their campaigns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if campaign contributions play a a part. That is, once they have ended a campaign, I would expect they could no longer accept contributions to the campaign, and might even have to return any leftover funds. But if it is only suspended, maybe not ? So, then, has the law regarding campaign contributions changed in this respect ? SinisterLefty (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Investing in a President Swalwell is a pretty serious gamble. Either you get who you paid for or you get complimentary extravaganza service you could've had for way less at a normal casino. I don't think many pro lobbyists see "suspended" and take it to mean the horse is still a longshot. Unless they're quitting to become a Senator Hickenlooper or Governor Moulton or something vaguely Inslee worth presidential prices. Even a good regional Chamber of Commerce president can pay off if you're lucky. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just being hypothetical, but it turns out Senator Hickenlooper is a solid possibility in 2020, and Inslee was running while still Governor. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is simply indicative of a desire to signal to their supporters that they are free (and even encouraged) to transfer that support to another Democratic candidate. There is a sense of urgency to have the party come together behind the eventual nominee (whoever that might end up being). Many feel that the division between supporters of Clinton and Sanders hurt the party in 2016 and was a factor in the victory of Trump. Many democrats and independents feel that such an attitude cannot be allowed to take hold in this election cycle. --Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Have any independents explained why it matters to them? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of independent voters who might vote Republican one election and Democratic the next, not people supporting an independent candidate. And they would care because they are probably upset with Trump's record over the last 2 years and feel that the country cannot take 4 more years of him. --Khajidha (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Less confusing to call those types "undecided" or "swing voters", I find. Save "independents" for people who don't feel the need to choose between left and right, I say. But yeah, some traditional Republicans probably want a more traditional Republican president, even if it means electing a nominal Democrat; that'll be much clearer a guess after the Republican primary, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought suspending a campaign meant the person quit actively running for the office, but the campaign operation itself kept existing, since it had business to wind down, offices to close, etc. So it took a while to shut down completely. This early in the campaign, the long shot candidates might not have had much of an operation. Swalwell, for example, may have run his presidential campaign out of his congressional campaign office and not had any staff or facilities that were purely from his presidential run. Later in the season the surviving operations will be bigger, so we may see some campaigns "suspended" rather than simply winking out. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's exactly the case, since back in 2016, even the candidates who dropped out long before the primaries (such as Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal) still used the word "suspend" when ending their campaigns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * According to Jacob Leibenluft of Slate in late '08, "suspending a campaign" has no formal meaning, rather "[w]hatever the candidate wants it to mean." I can't paste, so Google it for more if you want. You could also try asking a candidate (or spokesperson) to elaborate, if that's still legal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also says by "ending" it, one "might lose eligibility" for federal matching funds, whatever "might" means. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

See this earlier discussion on the refdest relating to "suspending" a campaign, versus "ending" it. Eliyohub (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

HMHS Britannic auction
When many artifacts of the HMHS Britannic were auctioned, what was the total in $USD? (Victor Mee Auctions, which is located in Coolnalitteragh, Ireland, was responsible for everything.)2604:2000:7104:2F00:6586:6906:26A6:DD8E (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by and, the contents have been auctioned twice; first by Harland and Wolff in 1919, and secondly by Victor Mee in 2019.  Per , a couple of items sold for €301,000 (of course, the conversion factor varies every day), but I'm not seeing data on prices for other artefacts.  Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well-aware of the conversion factors varying every day. But what was it on the day of the auction in 2019?2604:2000:7104:2F00:6586:6906:26A6:DD8E (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing data on prices for other artefacts. Nyttend (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the conversion factors of €301,000 (₤257,000) in $USD on May 1, 2019.2604:2000:7104:2F00:6586:6906:26A6:DD8E (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With Google, I found this page: It lists the exchange rate on May 1, 2019 as 1 EUR = 1.1203 USD.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much.2604:2000:7104:2F00:940F:5E36:12A5:54A6 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Criminal charges against dead person
Today's NYT reports on
 * ... a hearing called after federal prosecutors said they planned to drop the sex trafficking charges against Mr. Epstein in light of his death — a decision that requires a judge’s approval.

We discussed this here a week or two ago and I thought it was established that the US doesn't do posthumous trials. So if the judge doesn't approve dropping the charges, what are the prosecutors supposed to do? Did today's hearing have any legal consequences other than giving Epstein's victims a place to vent? I'm sure there will be civil litigation for years, so I'm wondering if the still-current criminal proceedings have any effect on it. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One possibility re above: if they drop the charges they may also have to stop investigating. But in that case they should want to keep the case open and investigate as much as they can, both to establish more facts about Epstein's activities and possible co-conspirators, and because the prosecutors are already seen by some as part of a cover-up (Epstein's original light sentence, skepticism about his supposed suicide, etc). 173.228.123.207 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that civil matters can still be pursued against the estate of a dead person; evidence gathered during the criminal prosecution can be used in civil trials, for example if the victim(s) seek to recover damages or if the state seeks to institute civil penalties against his estate or his business interests. The rules regarding civil procedure are different than criminal procedure; while crimes cannot be levied against the heirs or estate or businesses of a dead person, civil penalties may be.  -- Jayron 32 12:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could it be that the judge just needs to verify the death, by veiwing a death certificate, etc. ? Otherwise a prosecutor who had been bribed/threatened/blackmailed or doesn't want to prosecute his pal could just falsely claim he was dead. In a case like this the death is obvious, but not so if the perp was released prior to trial, especially if the body is missing or burnt/decomposed beyond recognition. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it be that the judge just needs to verify the death, by veiwing a death certificate, etc. ? It's even more mundane than that. The charges have to be formally dismissed by the court. This is only really being covered because of how high-profile Epstein's case was. It's a formal, procedural step virtually without importance except to those who care about such things. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But I suspect there are reasons that formal step is required, versus just allowing the prosecutor to drop it. Those are the reasons I gave. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I found it. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 48(a): "The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent." Emphasis mine. Leave of court is necessary no matter what. See the 1944 advisory committee notes: a federal indictment, information, or complaint may not be disposed of by nolle prosequi as was the pre-Rules practice, and as is the practice in many state courts. There is no exception for dead defendants. One would expect, however, that leave to be granted readily in most cases, particularly where the defendant is dead and the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is arguably terminated. As I said above, it's entirely mundane and procedural. And it absolutely has nothing to do with the court independently verifying anything; US courts don't really do that with fact evidence. They rely on the parties. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See also, US Department of Justice, Justice Manual, §§ 9–2.040, .050 (dealing with dismissals of indictments, informations, and complaints, and citing cases dealing with the court's discretion to deny such leave). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What I'm not seeing is why this is required. I have to imagine that if somebody attending the session, say the victim, presented evidence that the accused was not, in fact, dead, that the court would do more than just rubber-stamp the prosecutor's atempt to close the case. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's required because the Federal Rules require it. The reason why the Federal Rules require leave of court for a dismissal rather than allowing cases to be nolle prossed like in state courts is because that practice can be abused to harass criminal defendants. See the cases cited in § 9–2.050 of the Justice Manual, particularly Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977). United States v. Gonzalez, 58 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1995) is also informative. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The greatest American Author?
Having read much Ernest Hemmingway over the years, and much more recently, I note that the side he was on in the Spanish Civil War, was the losing side. Now this raises two questions which I would ask you to kindly answer. Firstly, when Franco won the war and instilled a Fascist regime in Spain, why was this not tackled and eliminated as part of World War II and the elimination of Fascism in Germany and Italy? It seems bizarre that the world would sit idly by while a major European power is run by a Fascist dictator into the 1970’s. How did this come to be? My second query is are his works dealing with the Spanish Civil War from his earlier life and those dealing with the Caribbean from his later life? I would assume so, although he could have returned to the war theme at any point in his life. Also, was there a clue in any of his later writings that he was going to kill himself? Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, as is no doubt explained in Francisco Franco, it is a matter of debate whether it is really correct to describe the Franco regime as "fascist". Labels aside, while the regime was no doubt authoritarian and repressive, you can make an excellent case that it was less so than that of the Soviet Union, and this is probably the most salient answer to your first question.  If the Communist threat had not been there, perhaps Europe would have tried to do something about Spain (though honestly I sort of doubt it, as Franco wasn't much trouble to his neighbors, which is what really drives most international interventions).  But in the context of the Cold War it wasn't going to happen. --Trovatore (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism alone isn't enough to be fascist, it could be communist or monarchist or theocratic or.. Fascist governments' platforms have to have superior and inferior group(s) besides far-left staples like rich/poor, counterrevolutionary/whatever they called the opposite and probably has to be anti-communist. The word has become mushy from being used against too many things though. FDR fascist! Eisenhower fascist! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When he defined fascism, Mussolini did NOT theorize superior and inferior racial groups (except of course African which was pretty standard of the time, including in the left wing) AFAIK. His lady was Jewish, and he was perfectly at ease with that. Also he never apologized for having been a top socialist party leader, he boasted about it: rather than anti-communist, I would call him post-communist; of course this still makes him an enemy of communism, but differently Gem fr (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not racial but weak vs. strong and social hierarchy with the state at the top and the commoner in his place but still higher than inferior countries, Italy should invade our part of Africa cause Africans are weak and we deserve a second Roman Empire, take these Greek islands and part of France just because, it is better to live 1 day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep and so on. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer to the first question is that Spain remained neutral during World War II. Since there were no formal declarations of war between Spain and any of the Allied powers, and Franco frequently himself took actions against the Axis, such as refusing access to Germans and Italians across the Pyrenees, and protecting Gibraltar for the British, as well as his many actions in support of the Axis, such as meeting with Hitler and allowing Spanish volunteers to join the Axis forces.  So, the reason the Allies didn't attack Spain is 1) he gave them no reason to and 2) the last thing they needed was yet another front to fight on.  As far as Hemmingway's works and what he wrote about at different times of his life, see Ernest Hemingway bibliography which has all of his published works.  You can read each synopsis and arrive at your own conclusions.  His later works tended to be non-fiction, including the memoir A Moveable Feast and the bullfighting exposé The Dangerous Summer.  As far as I know, he mentions nothing in either book about being suicidal.  Details of his last months and suicide are covered in the Wikipedia article and section Ernest Hemingway.  -- Jayron 32 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the first question : check Spain during World War II
 * "I don't like your fascist regime" (even if true, which can be argued against) was not a proper Casus Belli for USA nor UK. They did their best to NOT let Spain join the axis, and if they could have had it in the Allies, they would (when in a war, you want allies, even unsavory, not more enemies).
 * Gem fr (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not arguable, it was fascist. Though Francoists were able to pragmatize their fanaticism enough to not attack either side and the other sides were happy to continue not attacking them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can prove that with references, you might want to have a go at the Francisco Franco article, which does discuss fascism, but largely in the context of pressures on Franco to adopt fascism, which apparently he largely resisted.
 * Part of it of course comes down to how you define "fascism". If you define it to mean "authoritarian nationalism", well, yes, Franco was an authoritarian nationalist.  But typically it means something more specific than that, at least in serious discourse. --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could call him big tent authoritarian nationalist syncreticism then. He seems a bit like a play both sides and change position whenever convenient guy. The Jewish thing was pretty shrewd if he foresaw becoming a pariah if the war turned against the Axis, they lost and he didn't save enough to have something to exaggerate later. If they won he could of course pretend to finally change his mind and hand over everyone they wanted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You understand that this line of thinking "let's pretend I am/always was in line with the current dominant ideology, while I just seek my best interest" is NOT fascism, right? Franco surely was called "fascist", but, who was not? I mean, Roosevelt was, too, so what? As blurry as Mussolini's thinking could be, it still had some distinctive traits, and Franco fill the bill of fascism no more than, say, again, Roosevelt (and most people would just laugh, smirk or shrug if you call Roosevelt a fascist).
 * Plus, my "even if true" actually referred more to the question whether UK and USA liked Franco Regime; they failed to fight it (even undercover) when it was easiest, that is, during the Spanish war, and they eagerly sought and welcomed as allies very similar regime (Vargas Era Brazil for instance, perhaps even more "fascist") so I think we can safely argue against "UK and USA did not liked Franco Regime. Gem fr (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that doesn't make you fascist, he just seems like a weasel to me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that neutral nations are useful in war, being used for prisoner exchanges, negotiations, routes for spies to enter or leave enemy territory, etc. (There were other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, but more is better in this regard.) SinisterLefty (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for these responses, I believe the first part of the question has been answered and for this I thank you. The second though, concerning signs of his suicide and illness reflected in his later works...I often find with Hemmingway that it is not what is said, but rather what is 'not' said that is the true message behind his tales and so perhaps I have phrased my question badly. Are there any suggestions or hints, between the lines, or overtly, that speak of his illness and suicide? Thanks again Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not read it, so I can't endorse it, but perhaps a book like This may be useful for your research. -- Jayron 32 16:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you can read The Old Man and the Sea as a metaphor of life as a fight in which you can give up, so retrospectively read it as the kind of hint you are looking for. Not sure this line of thinking is really relevant, though; there is no way you can "prove" or disprove it. Gem fr (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Some works may be semi-autobiographical, but knowing which aspects are, and are not, the author's own feelings is not an easy task. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your header "The greatest American Author?" seems to have no relation to the questions that follow. Are you also asking whether he's the greatest American author?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After having seen that header on my watchlist, I was happy to read it wasn't the OP's actual question. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I intended the phrase "The greatest American Author?" to be a rhetorical question. He is my favourite author overall and ipso facto the best American author of all time, in my opinion. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. But the header is supposed to give us some notion of what the question is about, not some quite unrelated and irrelevant point about the person in the question. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)