Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 June 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18

"Inexperienced" presidents

Ordinarily, the American presidency is the culmination of a long political career that involves a succession of offices over several decades. Barak Obama seems to have come out of nowhere. Four years ago, he was just a state senator and adjunct professor. His rise to favorite for the highest elected office has been so swift, some people think he's the Antichrist (Google /Obama Antichrist/).

My question is -- has this ever happened before? Has anyone ever gone from relative obscurity to major-party presidential candidate so quickly -- at least since Abraham Lincoln? Theodore Roosevelt went from assistant Navy secretary to president in a few years, but he was elected as McKinley's vice president. Some candidates haven't held political office, but they were famous as generals.

Woodrow Wilson comes to mind. Grover Cleveland was sheriff of Erie County, NY, in 1881 and president in 1885. Any others? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower had little to no political experience, though he was not obscure by any definition. Polk was a surprise to many. Andrew Jackson was another famous military man, not a political one. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And Gerald Ford was never elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was in the US House of Representatives for 25 years, but not in the Senate, not a governor, and not a General. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

U S Grant was also quite inexperienced at politics when he became President, which made him a rather ineffective political leader. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover comes to mind. -- Taxa (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Barack Obama is really a good example of this. He would be a Senator for nearly 4 years by the time he is elected (if he is elected). Prior to that he was a Illinois state senator for quite a number of years. He even held the position of chairman of the "Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee" for nearly 2 years. He also had some experience in student politics... I.E. he may be young, but he's hardly new to politics. George W. Bush is probably a better example. He was only governor for nearly 56 years, just onetwo more year then Obama was a Senator. He had run for office before, and was part of his father's campaign, but didn't really hold any other politic office or play any political role. He did have various roles (including managing) in business, but whether this better prepares you for office then being a university lecturer and a lawyer is IMHO questionable. The only reason why people didn't see GWB as coming out of no where was probably because of the fact his father was president Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Edit: Sorry mistake in my calculations, Bush was governet for nearly 6 years.

OK, just to clarify, I'm not trying to make a point about Barak Obama's supposed lack of experience. I'm just trying to see if there were other presidential candidates who shot into the public consciousness so quickly. I've got nothing against state senators -- I used to work for one -- but they rank slightly ahead of city council member in prestige. To go from state senator to president in four years is amazing. Eisenhower, Jackson, Ford, Grant and Hoover were well-known national figures at least eight years before becoming president. George W. Bush only entered politis in 1994, but he owned the Texas Rangers and of course was somewhat famous as a son of George H.W. Bush. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand US politics much, but it seems to me that in terms of experience, being a state senator is surely not much of a less useful experience to being president then being a governor and being a governor for 8 years including 2 years of being the chairman of a committee probably gives you nearly as much experience as the governor for 6 years which means that Obama has (or will have) nearly 4 years of experience of being a senator unmatched by Bush. Whether it's as much prestige seems irrelevant/unimportant to me. As I mentioned above, I don't really see the experience Bush gained from being the owner/manager of a sports team as really much more more useful then the experience of Obama as being a lecturer/lawyer so it's not the relevant to the calculations. In other words, from my POV, Obama has significantly more experience applicable to being President then Bush had. I'm not saying that Bush didn't have enough experience, or that Obama does have; I'm not an American so I really don't care that much but simply that I don't see any reason why Obama would be seen as more 'coming out of nowhere' then Bush since from my POV Bush can be said to have more came out of nowhere then Obama. While Bush have been more widely known then Obama, this seems to be to be irrelevant since what matters most is experience (and factors like character which are not under discussion) not whether you've heard of the person before. (I mean a lot of American's have heard of Britney Spears but I don't think many will vote her President). Or to put it a different way, if you say Obama came out of nowhere then surely Bush belongs on that list too, and I suspect quite a number of other people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd say that having an executive position in a large state is certainly more valuable experience for the kind of role a president must play, I'd say even experience as a mayor is more valuable than a state senator, since you can judge how they handled executive decisions. I don't think experience is a useful guide on who to vote for anyway except for giving evidence to their viewpoints and ability to handle the responsibility of office. But this isn't what the OP is talking about, to go from relative obscurity to Democratic nominee for president in 4 years is incredible, and he/she was just asking if there was a precedent for it. -- Mad031683 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd have to disagree with you there, I don't see the experience of a mayor as more valuable then a state senator (but perhaps that's reflective of the fact I've always lived in a country with a Westminister style of government) and I have to admit, I still don't really see what make Obama any different from Bush. Both were relatively obscure beforehand. One have been more well known in general, but not as a politician but simply as the owner of a sports team. Bringing back the Britney Spears or perhaps even better Michael Jackson example, I personally think it would be more surprising even completely ignoring their likely unsuitability for the job if one of them were to become the next President even though both have been well known for a long time, MJ arguably even longer then Bush. In other words, perhaps for Americans, there is a significant difference between Bush and Obama but from my outsider POV, there doesn't seem to be which is why I can't help wondering whether this is a bit of case of recentism or people forgetting history as in people probably see Obama's rise as remarkable because it's happening now similarly to the way Bush's rise (or a number of other president's rise) may have seemed remarkable at the time. Or perhaps it's reflective of the the fact that US politics to at least some degree is dynastic and/or money orientated in other words, Bush's achievement are seen as less of a surprise because he was part of a political and/or exceptional wealthy family. Just to be clear, I'm not criticising the US political system or anything like that. I just find it odd that people make a big fuss about Obama but not Bush when it seems to me like both have great similarities in their potential lack of experience and obscurity before the election and I'm trying to understand why that is so. And to be clear, I'm not singling Bush out, but he was the first example that occured to me to look at and I know little about US politics Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's political experience was only two years in the US House of Representatives, 11 years before his nomination for President. He was, however, a national figure in the slavery fight and became known for the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, which increased his national profile, even though he lost the Senate seat to Douglas. But Obama's national standing became better-known for his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, too. Corvus cornix_talk 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A related question I'm too lazy busy to look up the answer to. Traditionally, most US presidents have had one of the four following jobs on their resumés when they became president: vice president, state governor, general in a major war, and (in the old days) secretary of state. I wonder how many presidents have not had one of those jobs on their resumés? Kennedy, Hoover, Lincoln.... Who else? —Kevin Myers 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding, William Howard Taft (had ruled a couple of colonies, but no states), Franklin Pierce, and a few more if the war of 1812 doesn't count as major. Algebraist 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the quick response. I'd say 1812 was major, maybe not by our standards, but certainly by theirs. Pierce became a general in the Mexican War, so he's off the list. Without looking it up, I would have guessed that Harding had been governor of Ohio, but I see he was only the lite gov. If Obama is elected, he joins a club with Kennedy, Hoover, Lincoln, Harding, and Taft (if we've got them all). A mixed bunch—a bit of the best & the worst. —Kevin Myers 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely all of them (assuming the reliability of the relevant Wikipedia articles). I'm not sure how I missed Pierce's generalship. Unless I'm missing something again, McCain also stands to join the same club. Algebraist 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy was a long-time senator though, and was a "war hero" though not a general. Maybe those jobs should be added to your list (as they would also fit McCain). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Here's another approach: Except for Abraham Lincoln, all US presidents have had one of the five following jobs on their resumés when they became president: vice president, state governor, army general, cabinet member, and US Senator (for at least one full term). McCain would make this list; Obama is an exception, and would not qualify until he completed his term as senator, which would I guess be in 2011. This supports the notion that Obama's rise has been unusually fast—he's three years ahead of schedule! Unless, of course, he's the next Lincoln. ;-) —Kevin Myers 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Arthur do anything more notable than Obama before becoming VP and then President in 1881? Srnec (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chester Arthur is a classic example of the obscure "accidental president". I'd say that Arthur's career as NY militia quartermaster general in the Civil War and NY Port Collector gives him a weightier resumé than Obama, but others may disagree. The key difference, of course, is that Arthur never ran for president. He famously quipped that the vice presidency was a higher office than he could have reasonably hoped for. —Kevin Myers 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm isn't Obama 2 years ahead of schedule not 3 years? At least this is what my calculations early would suggest (I believe and supported by our article, Senators server 6 years not 7). In any case, this does bring back the point, is it really that much more remarkable to serve only 4 years instead of 6? For me, it doesn't seem to be. One is slightly quicker, but not by an ornane amount. Given the complexity of terms it still doesn't really seem that surprising to me. Since Senators serve 6 years those elected in non-Presidential years either have to serve 8 years or 4 compared to those elected in presidential years who can serve a full term. And since there are term limits nowadays it's usually difficult for a candidate to challenge an incumbent from the same party unless the candidate was absolutely shit, hence it's always going to be risky to wait, particularly when your party seems to have a good chance of winning since it will likely mean your shut out for 8 years if the candidate from your party wins. I guess the biggest issue is the ornane amount of time US Presidental elections seem to take means that Obama only had 3 years experience when people started voting for him and less then that when he started to campaign for the nomination and I have to admit 3 years compaed to 5 years or 2 years compared to 4 years does start to seem like a bigger difference. (See my above comment on how I'm not trying to criticise the US political system) Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I followed all of that, but I think I agree with your conclusion. When people first began talking about Obama for president, he was a somewhat obscure newcomer with very little experience compared to the traditional president. If he does become president, probably only Lincoln won the office with a less impressive resumé, which is not bad company to be in. Having little experience has actually worked to Obama's advantage so far: he hasn't done much in politics that opponents can use against him. Obama is fortunate to come along at a time when resumés don't matter much to American voters, if they ever did. Bush was a relative newcomer in 2000, and in 1992 the late night talk shows were joking about the improbability of a governor from Arkansas (not exactly a major state) becoming president. More important now than a thick resumé is the ability to be appealling on television to potential (especially swing) voters, and the ability to excite the party's core constituency. As has often been pointed out, Obama is very strong on television; appealing to swing voters is now the major drive of his campaign. —Kevin Myers 14:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How old is rape and murder?

How old is rape and murder? Coffsneeze (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They both predate humans. I'd guess murder is as old as predators, with murder for cannabalism purposes being the earliest form. Rape probably didn't come along until there was sexual reproduction. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably?! How could rape have possibly existed before sexual reproduction? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a broader meaning of rape, "to exploit and give nothing in return", as in "to rape the land", where (hopefully), no actual sexual penetration occurs. Using this meaning, I suppose any parasites could be said to "rape" their hosts, regardless of whether the parasite or host can reproduce sexually. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ about murder, since said article defines it as the killing of a human being. If you are religious, you cain say it goes back a long way. If you're not, I doubt we're abel to make any specific claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't they both depend on a legal structure to define them? So while the acts predate history, laws against them presumably date from the earliest existing laws, whatever they are. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Adam Bishop, both are defined by society so they have existed as long as a law against them has existed. Both occur 'naturally' in the wild. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See:Murder#Origins and Rape#History. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging from animals I've seen in the act, I'd say rape precedes consent. --Sean 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While the words "rape" and "murder" have a legal usage, that isn't the only meaning. For example, if a dictator passed a law saying he could execute or have sexual relations by force with anyone he pleased, we would still refer to that as murder and rape, no matter what the law in that jurisdiction called it. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm sure the OP was asking about humans. If you wanted to know when people started murdering/raping each other, would you specify in your question that you're referring to humans only? If you wanted to ask about animals, I'm sure you'd specify then. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the question is limited to humans, the answer then becomes "pretty much whenever you define humans to have first existed (would that be Homo sapiens sapiens ?), that's when rape and murder started". StuRat (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, based on the definitions of rape and murder, I'd say that it applies to humans only. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

City walls

How common were city walls in the areas involved in the Thirty Years' War? How effective were they? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They were still common. See the article on the Military Revolution, and particularly the heading on the Trace Italienne. You might be interested in the Siege of Jasna Góra, albeit that that's part of 'the Deluge' rather than the Thirty Years' War. In the case of the Poles and the Swedes, only those cities that were fortified to modern (Vauban) standards were able to resist. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Jasna Góra is a monastery, not a city. From the same Polish-Swedish war, Zamość is a good example of an actual city that was fortified well enough to withstand a Swedish siege. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, returning to the subject, I was just going to add Zamość (which was also the site of a particularly ugly Nazi war atrocity), but couldn't remember it at the time - well done Kpalion! Most City walls were dismantled in the mid 19h. century - I'm thinking here of Krakow and Barcelona's Las Ramblas in particular

American Snipers In The Falklands Conflict (On the Argentinian side)

A typical story....

My father has repeatedly told me in his drunken state of how, as a young soildier of 18, he was ordered to shoot American and German mercs in an execution-esque style. He said this was never an official subject in the war.

So is my father just a delusional ex-squaddie suffering from Falklands War Syndrome (no offence to those affected by GWS) or is there some truth to this?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/general-history/43126-mercs-falklands-war.html Taken from the above site.

This rumour has been going around the British army for decades. Before I joined up my friends dad was from 2 Para and fought in the Falklands and had told his son the same story. Having joined the army senior soldiers would also recite the same basic story that the attack on Goose Green was bogged down by very accurate sniper fire at night. The position was eventually over run and an American mercenary with a sniper rifle and night vision scope was caught. He told the paras that he was am American citizen and showed him his passport. Thinking that he would be let go. He was then shot on the spot as a mercenary.

The number of times and the number of different sources that have told this story leads me believe that it must have some grain of truth in it?

I have read many a book on the conflict but have not ever found anything to back this story up. I can imagine if it was true that the British army would have kept it very quiet not wanting to cause any trouble with its cold war ally.

Can anyone provide an accurate source for this story or it is just another drunken army tale?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular rumor, but will warn against believing things because of "the number of times and the number of different sources that have told this story". The different sources frequently all got the info from each other or a common source, so you are really going off info from just a single, possibly unreliable, source. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of speculation along these lines on google[1], some FAQs and we have an article of a century and a half ago: Irish and German Mercenary Soldiers' Revolt. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be flippant but have you considered asking your father about this when not "in his drunken state"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth Sorry but the above quote is not from my Father or I would not be asking this question. It was meant as an example of the rumour that is common among the ranks of the British army. It was put in the question to show how common a rumour it is and not just something I had dreamed up. The post above yours alludes to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia Inducing Film

Hi there: About ten years ago a schizophrenia-inducing scene was shown on TV. All I remember about it was that it had a character called something like "Solarcane". He was a wizard, or a psychological machinator of some kind. While watching it, I had a strange temporary schizophrenic-like experience which lasted approximately 10 seconds. When I discussed this with a friend, he said he'd had the same experience when he'd watched it the night before. Does anyone know the name of this film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.132.20 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you call schizophrenia? Some Japanese cartoons seem to cause epilleptic attack, but it only happens with people that have a disposition for that. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean photosensitive epilepsy, one famous Japanese example being Dennō Senshi Porygon. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

fair ethnic discrimination/racism?

Imagine that you want to contract a translator, but you want him to be a native speaker of language X. Wouldn't this be a form of discriminating against foreigners? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to say for certain, but i'd consider it mildly discriminatory... Whilst ,most nations with anti-discrimination/anti-racism laws exclude set activities from them (e.g. it isn't discrimination/racist to not consider a black person to play the role of Shakespeare in a period drama), i'm not convinced this would count in the exclusions. Is the person being a native speaker somehow inherently better than a fluent speaker of that language? Define 'native' - do they have to have been born there, or can they just have spoken it their whole life? What if they are the child of natives but their first language is X and they also speak Y (the language of their parents)? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where discrimination against foreigners enters. It appears that foreigners would be more likely to be the native speaker you're looking for. From a more general discrimination standpoint, the US recognizes the idea of bona fide occupational qualifications, essential capabilities for a given job that permit an employer to discriminate (within narrow bounds) while hiring. Being a native speaker may well be one such BFOQ for a translator (certainly fluency at a minimum would be). — Lomn 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The contract could simply require "native-level fluency" in the language, which could include not speaking it in a thick accent. In most of these situations it's easy to just focus on the actual desired trait, rather than a potentially discriminatory externality that serves as shorthand for that trait. --Sean 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If a candidate meets the qualifications, i.e. is completely fluent in both language X and your language and is otherwise qualified, not hiring him because he is/isn't foreign would, I believe, be discrimination (and possibly racist, but that would depend much more on the motives of the hirer). Qualifications should be the only determining factor, not the ethnicity of the person. If, however, the ethnicity were a valid qualification (say you wanted a translator in Jerusalem and the people you would be communicating with would not talk to a Palestinian), ethnicity could be a factor in the hiring decision. — Sam 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

The key thing here is that a native speaker could be of an ethnicity. If you reject a fluent, native speaker because he or she is not of the 'right' ethnicity, then yes that would probably be discriminitory. For example in Indonesia many people ethnically Chinese are native speakers of Indonesian (as previously the government heavily discouraged them from retaining any signs of their culture). Similarly in Malaysia people speak a variety of languages and there are quite a number of people of a variety of ethnicities who can be best described as fluent, native speakers of these languages, especially English. The question of whether requiring a native speaker when you don't really require one would be discriminatory is more complicated. I suspect the answer is it would not be legally but personally I would consider it discriminatory. Obviously if you feel you have a legitimate reason then it would be diffirent Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about a company that hires, for example, only employees with a US-degree? It do not discriminate, say, against Mexican who studies in the US and would not hire an American that studied in Mexico. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well presuming you have no good reason for doing so then as with my final issue I would personally consider discriminatory. I probably should refrain from commenting further on the legal situation since I really have no idea about the legal situation in the US. What make it a lot more complicated is the fact that US degrees appear to vary very greatly from the 'diploma mill college' type to the Ivy Leagues and it would be difficult to argue there is a legimate reason for you to allow a diploma mill degree while disallowing a degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and also the question of how you treat non-Mexican, non-US degrees. For example, do you reject a degree from Oxford or Cambridge? What about other UK degrees? German? Singaporean? Indian? Simply put, there more it seems like you are simply discriminating based on ethnicity without legitimate concern about the quality of the degrees, the more likely I suspect you are to violate the law. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

House of Lords

I am confused about how partisan politics organises itself in the House of Lords.

They appear to organise themselves along the lines of the Commons, with a "Government" and "Opposition", Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. (it appears so on BBC Parliament anyway).

What sort of connection do these have with the party, is it just a stated affiliation or are they closely affiliated with party. Is there a whip from the party? If so, given that they have no concerns about elections does it work effectively?

Finally, is it a requirement that once a new party becomes government in the commons they form one in the Lords (e.g. do they move to the other side of the bench)? 78.148.84.63 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last question I can answer in one word: No. A party which has a majority in the House of Commons does not need a majority in the House of Lords, but of course, it helps. The general consensus between parties seems to be that the House of Lords shouldn't be dominated by any party.

To your previous questions: the Labour and Conservative party groups in the House of Lords do have whips, but discipline can't be enforced as strictly - mostly because they are life peers. The party can't remove them just by not renominating them at the next election, because they aren't elected. There are cross-bench peers in the House of Lords - that includes members of smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Chief Whip might help a little. Peers can decide for themselves whether or not they take a party whip. Many will have long-standing affiliations with a political party, often having been MPs. There are fewer sanctions available to Lords whips, notably the absence of a deselection threat arising out of the tenure Peers possess, but incentives to toe the line still exist. Those affiliated with the governing party will wish the majority of its business to pass, since a government is weakened to the extent it cannot move its legislative programme on; and so opposing the bill one happens to despise may have some bearing over the passage of other bills one supports. I guess the whip also influences appointments to committees which presumably are desired by a good number of peers. Lords whips are aligned with Commons whips, in the sense that when the government changes, the outgoing party's whips will become shadow whips, in incoming party's whip will form the Government's Whips Office - http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/

I'm sure much more could be written about Lords whipping, and our main article is certainly lacking. Good questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As well, a Lords majority isn't essential because the Prime Minister comes from the House of Commons (or possibly Scotland, in the case of Gordon Brown), and it is the confidence of the House of Commons which needs to be maintained. I don't think the House of Lords don't have votes of no confidence.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(OP) When the government changes after a long incumbent period, the likelihood is that the (Commons) “Government” will have a minority in the House of Lords.

The minor (opposition) party in the Lords therefore will be the government of the commons. Should you still refer to them as opposition and government lords? 78.148.84.63 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would detract from the word "government" - most ministers come from the Commons, not the Lords. It would simplify terminology, though.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The governing party's whips in the Lords are known as the Government Whips - that you can check against their website - http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Most? Is it still possible to have cabinet minister that is not in the commons? Who are they? 78.148.84.63 (talk)

(Thank you all for you answers btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.63 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible for cabinet ministers to be from the Lords, but the convention is that ministers must be answerable to the commons. That's why, for instance, Charles Falconer was unable to continue with responsibility for Justice, when the Ministry of Justice was shelled out of the Home Office a couple of years ago. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@ 78.148.121.214 - comment on "... the Prime Minister comes from the House of Commons (or possibly Scotland, in the case of Gordon Brown) ...". The Parliament of which the House of Commons forms a part is the Parliament of the entire UK. It's not just the parliament of England. Gordon Brown is a member of the House of Commons, representing a constituency that just happens to be located in Scotland. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, it's still possible for the UK to have a prime minister who isn't in parliament at all, and certainly it's possible (though very unlikely to happen) to have one sitting in the Lords, as most of the early PMs did. In practice, it would be a mistake for a major party to have a leader, let alone a prime minister, outside parliament. The last PM in the House of Lords was Alec Douglas-Home, who was Earl of Home when he formed a government on 18 October 1963. He resigned his peerages on 23 October and was elected to the House of Commons on 8 November. He could have stayed in the Lords, but that would have made his position very difficult. Xn4 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Low homeless rate in major cities

If you'll pardon the vagueness inherent in the question, I'm searching for the major metropolitan city by population with the lowest rate of homelessness. This is not very helpful. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to limit your scope somewhat, to cities of over a million or capital cities, for example? Are you dealing in terms of cities proper, or metropolitan areas?78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably I'm dealing with the city proper (since I would think homelessness would be negligible in the suburbs). Over two million, maybe, or largest 100. Llamabr (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Negligible by comparison? or unlikely because suburban. This search sample[2] might disagree. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient of the Inn

The Dictionary of National Biography article on Salathiel Lovell notes that "He was called to the bar at Gray's Inn in November 1656, and became an ancient of the inn in 1671." So what does "ancient of the inn" mean? Google's not being very forthcoming, pretty much pointing me back to the DNB article on Salathiel Lovell on Google Books. I'm writing a wikipedia article on the good (or bad - I haven't read that far) judge, and would like opinions on what the phrase might mean. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may be pardoned for such an obvious answer... you could phone Gray's Inn and ask them. I would do it now, but it is 8.25 in the evening in London.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But on balance, not that helpful. Whilst we're on the subject, what's a bencher (again in Grey's Inn parlance). Do we not have any barristers in the house this evening? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See Bencher - "a senior member of an Inn of Court."78.144.155.233 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm obliged to my learned friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This becoming an 'ancient' of an Inn of court has nothing to do with old age, you could get there in your twenties. A bencher is one or two better. So far as I can remember, it's a particular kind of Reader and may be a title used only at Gray's Inn. Bencherlite might have been able to help us, but he's on enforced wikileave. Xn4 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In 16th & 17th century England, "ancient" was a low-ranking officer (from a corruption of ensign), e.g. Shakespeare's Ancient Pistol. —Kevin Myers 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ancient = ensign = junior office-holder = I'm satisfied (and might yet trouble the Grey's Inn archivist to explain in some more detail the C21 translation of the term). --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-Anarchism

moved from Talk:Anarchism by User:Skomorokh

Is there a term for an anarchist that believes that not only should there be no central powers, there should be no rules whatsoever? No communities or any sort of social engagement, i.e. killing goes unpunished by any other human beings because no laws exist? -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of a particular term for what you describe. It might help if you clarified what you mean by "rules" (i.e. if you mean laws, our article on anarchist law might be of interest). Hardcore individualist anarchists who do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle and do not recognise property rights as natural rights might meet your description. Illegalist anarchists believe it is justifiable to commit "crimes" in statist environments, some Christian anarchists believe all manmade rules are illegitimate and defer to God, and insurrectionary anarchists are opposed to organizations, preferring instead direct action. The closest anarchist position to what you describe may be the philosophy of Max Stirner, a famous egoist:

“ All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mind, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will - bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have. ” — Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own. Rebel Press 1982. p. 257

Skomorokh 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is something of a bias in this title. The implication is that somehow a society of utterly no ethical value and rule is an "ultamate" anarchy. I submit to you that this is the furthest conception of society from what anarchists have ever conceived of. As Skomorakh has already pointed out, there has never been a branch of anarchist thought that advocated for a world view of all-against-all, and have actually used such imagery as an argument against any given modern society. One of the key principals of anarchy is the concept that social harmony is best maintained through cooperation, not competition. This is known as mutual aid. At its most fundamental, this means getting along with your neighbor to get things done is better than regarding them as obstacles to be eliminated. That's a universal to each anarchist school of thought, and has been specifically argued for in such works as What is Property? and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, just to name some of the oldest works on the topic. It can be argued that certain contemporary anarchist branches view competition as acceptable within the context of the free market, but they only consider this acceptable on the grounds that it is voluntary, and so do not advocate violent coercion. For these reasons, I would not consider a society as the one you have described to be an anarchy, much less an "ultra anarchy". --Cast (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can i be pregnant ?

i had sex may i was wondering if i could be pregnant i was waiting for my menstrual period and it came down in june i had it for about 6 days can i be pregnant or im i not pregnant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.104.110 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not give medical advice. Take a pregnancy test or consult a doctor. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice - if you're not sure and want to know for sure, consult your doctor. In the meantime you can also read up on Menstruation and Pregnancy to give you some of the science behind your question. Mattnad (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)