Humanities desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28

Coporate Social Responsiblity

Hello, I am looking for ways to solve corporate social responsibility, especially when it comes to the environment. I am aware that this problem is extremely hard to solve, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks, Julio

Pitchforks and torches come to mind. Or put another way: make sure there are strong disincentives to corporations not being socially responsible. Also, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'd discard your premise that there are "no real solutions to this problem." 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of corporations on their environment is referred to as an externality. The gist of it is that in the process of maximizing their own profits, businesses can sometimes pollute to the point of harming the overall economy. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem, the most common being Pigovian taxes. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cap and Trade system is another. The way to cancel out an externality is to internalize it so that the "producer pays" or the "decision-maker bears the cost." You can do this either by making them buy scarce credits or by instituting a tax that approximates the social cost of the action. In this way, regular people and corporations won't pursue actions that are inefficient in terms of their fully-loaded "costs". And you don't need excessive Government, NGO or private citizen oversight.

In order to do this, you have to overcome the ever-present "special interests" and other people who will use various weaker economic laws to show why they shouldn't have to pay. Ignore these people, but recognize that they are acting in their own best interests. If incentives are correct, acting in one's own best interest is one of the most powerful forces humanity can wield!NByz (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for everyone who has replied. I really appreciate all of your input. Does anyone else have any other ideas?

Julio

Shareholder activism? —D. Monack ^talk 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading about Ecological modernization. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aid for Microsoft in Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008?

I heard somewhere that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 benefited Microsoft, by way of tax breaks or bailout or something. Does anyone know of a source where I can verify the direct effect the bailout has on Microsoft? --Explodicle (T/C) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does a share dividend make shareholders better off?

I've never understood this. I understand that from an accounting point of view, it decreases retained earnings, and increases shareholders' equity. So what? Market Cap ends up being the same because of earnings dilution. If I'm an investor, I still have the same claims to earnings. I just have more units of a less valuable asset.

Also, Share dividends are taxed in Canada. Making this seemingly useless action actually yield a negative result!

A google search for "What's the point of a stock dividend?" introduces some ideas.

Some of the given answers seem to be:

It gives the investor choice (he or she can sell the extra stock or keep it). My Question: But, unless the stockholder had a VERY small position in the stock (like 10 shares or less) wouldn't the stockholder be able to make the same net change in her overall position by selling the same percentage of their existing position? Either way there would be transaction costs (unlike a cash dividend).

It gives the investor access to a larger future dividend (assuming DPS is maintained) My Question: Couldn't this be accomplished by simply increasing the dividend yield/payments?

It may be used by companies when liquid cash is in short supply My Question: If liquidity is in short supply just suspend the dividend or - if you think it's worth it from the psychological point of view - pay a little more to access short term credit and keep the dividend flowing. If I was invested in a company that had paid dividends for years, and they all of a sudden replaced a regular dividend with a share dividend, I would be mighty suspicious. NByz (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A stock dividend is somewhat akin to an interest payment on a bond: a fee, paid by the user of the capital to the owner of the capital, for the use of the capital. Dividends, of course, are not mandatory and in some sectors have fallen out of favor because of tax treatment. Other options would be to purchase shares on the open market, thereby driving up the value; or to issue additional shares to those who already own a piece of the company (a share split).

From the share owners’ perspective, money held as retained earnings has little meaning. From the directors’ perspective, large cash holdings may make the company a take-over target. Market capitalization, one of the stock analysts’ favorite measures, means nothing to the owner or director, unless it puts the company into a different class of investment targets. Money distributed as dividends, or in the form of additional shares (a split) may be taxable under either general income or capital gains. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm talking about a "Share Dividend". There's a small section on them in the Dividend article. They are when the company issues shares (usually in amounts similar to what a reasonable regular dividend yield would be, although if you think about it, from the investor's point of view, a 2-for-1 stock split is just a 100% share dividend) to the company's existing share-holders in lieu of a real dividend. It doesn't affect market cap or assets. (As near as I can tell) All it does is makes an accounting entry reducing retained earnings and increasing equity (or 'contributed capital' probably, I'm not exactly sure, but it moves it from one category of equity to another, unlike a share split which only increases the number of shares outstanding) and increases the float of shares outstanding. Because each share represents a smaller claim on earnings (dilution), prices adjust downward to exact cancel any change in market cap.

Just so no one thinks DOR was off his rocker when he responded about stock dividends, the original question did refer to these, and not share dividends. GreatManTheory (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I changed "stock" to "share" in my OPNByz (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be explaining one or all parts of it wrong because I really don't understand why this action would be useful.NByz (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure... The article says "if" it involves new shares, so presumably some companies issue existing shares as a dividend, perhaps by combining it with a share buyback scheme. That would serve to redistribute the shares among fewer people, but I'm not sure of the benefit of that (it could be done via the secondary market anyway). If they are new shares, then perhaps it is done for the same purpose as a stock split, to keep the share price at a reasonable level to improve liquidity - issuing a 10% share dividend every year, rather than a 2:1 stock split every 7 or 8 years, might be more efficient some how. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure of the benefits but this article (http://moneyterms.co.uk/scrip-issue/) is a starting point for an understanding and also http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/scrip-issue.htm?id=1284&PopupMode=false 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That first article offered a little. It says that "by reducing retained earnings, management is showing confidence that they won't have to use that retained earnings account to pay dividends in the future." Although, I think, if a company wants to pay a dividend, it doesn't need to have a retained earnings account at all. It could just liquidate an asset and pay out the dividend using cash, and reducing contributed capital on the equity side.

Something I did think of while I was sleeping last night was that if a company has two classes of shares, issuing a share dividend on one class, but not the other is a way of increasing claims to ownership on that class. Although I would imagine that a well-thought-out original registration would restrict an action like that.NByz (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian and American human appearances

What are the natural hair colour and natural eye colour of Canadians and Americans girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.120 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American and Canadian are nationalities, while hair and eye color are genetic traits. There's no particular relationship between nationality and hair or eye color; you'll find Americans and Canadians have every human eye and hair color. And you'll find that boys and girls don't differ in these traits. - Nunh-huh 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are strong associative corrolations between some nationalities and hair and eye colour. Specifically most African countries and black hair/brown eyes and Scotland and Ireland and red hair/blue eyes. But its not the nationality the causes the preponderance of a particular hair/eye colour, its the fact that those countries have a significantly high proportion of people from particular ethnic backgrounds. Its the enrichment of certain genetic variants in different ethnic backgounds that result in the enrichment of certain pigentation types.

That all said, with Canada and the US being in the New World, there are many different ethnicities that make up their populations. Unless you mean Native American and Native Canadian, in which case I would hazard a guess that the "natural" eye and hair colours tend to be dark. Rockpocket 07:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the questioner didn't specify age. Some people are born with blond hair which slowly darkens over several years to brown or almost black. Some people are born with blue eyes that shade to green or hazel later. And, of course, grey hair or no hair at all becomes more common with increasing age; although either condition sometimes affects quite young people as well. Rmhermen (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Girl" would usually refer to a child (it's used more generally, of course). --Tango (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is 76.64? I'm wondering how anyone with Intertubes access would be unaware of the range of North American pigmentations. Do I overestimate the degree to which the rest of the world is exposed to NA entertainers? —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe. Toronto. Saintrain (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one side of the US-Canada border, the men are uniformly tall, intelligent, honest, kind and generous; and the women are all beautiful, smart, friendly, cheerful and sincere. On the other side of the border, the opposite is true, but no one can remember which is which. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reference. South = Good / North = Bad.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

men sexual behaviour

Hi, i'm a married woman,age 34. and hope you can help me with this. my husband and me have a very good relation emotional and sexual and love each other so much, but he likes to watch born pics and films and most the times musterbates with them, he know's that i know about this and we talked about it. But i need to know if this is normal...and if it is a need that man feels he need it and have to do it??? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannouda (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we can't give actual medical advice, I can say if you meant to put a "p" instead of a "b" in "born," then it's a potential problem, as addiction to that stuff is very common. His satisfaction should be with you.

Thankfully, he is comfortable telling you about it; in fact, it may be that he is glad you know so he has some level of accountability. So, he may even know it's a problem; or, if he doesn't, he still has a great amount of trust in you; you can feel good about that part.

So, I'd recommend that the two of you talk with a counselor about it to help him to focus on feeling satisfaction with you instead of with those pics, just so it doesn't grow into a more serious problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the standard "we don't give advice here"; most relational-therapist-type-people would state that the standards of behavior exist only within the relationship; what is normal and allowable for one couple is not for others. If it doesn't bother you, his masturbation isn't a problem. It certainly doesn't bother me any... However, if the situation does bother you, and is creating tension within the relationship, it is probably something that needs to be worked out. It isn't about the masturbation per se, its about the context in the relationship. If he spent lots of time watching football and ignoring you, and that was a source of tension, or if he spent lots of time out drinking with his buddies, and that was a source of tension, it would be equally a problem. Again, if this is a problem, see a therapist of some sort. But it isn't about masturbation, its about the context within your relationship... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP said : "as addiction to that stuff is very common."

This is a pretty bold statement. Does it have any sort of scientific consensus behind it? Do you have a cite? It also needs quantification. (A 'lot' of people run over by cars, but no one would advise that people should stop crossing the street.) APL (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days to find a cite, but I do know that the pleasure chemicals (A form of dopamine) is released when doing such acts. After enough repeated action, the law of diminishing returns will kick in and your body will continually crave that chemical. This can carry over to other aspects of life until you are completely consumed by the desire to receive this chemical. Look into Ted Bundy's case if you want a documented example of forementioned information.

The ACTUAL English "Throne"

I'm not asking about the symbolic English "Throne" that belongs to Elizabeth II and that her son Charles is heir to, that we tend to refer to as a sort of synonym for the Monarchy.

I'm asking here about the actual, physical, CHAIR.

Does it even exist? I'm pretty sure it does, just as I'm quite sure I've actually seen on TV the actual, physical CROWN of England, the actual, physical HEADGEAR worn by the Queen on several extremely significant ceremonial occasions (such as her "Coronation").

But as for the PHYSICAL Throne, where is it located and what does it look like?

Can anyone lead me to an article or a site containing either a picture and/or location, frequency and/or occasions for which this byfar most famous, yet seldom if ever seen, single CHAIR on the entire planet is ever sat upon?

Does it even exist?

(And just in case anyone actually knows, is it anywhere near as comfy as a "La-Z-Boy" recliner?) :-) 70.52.63.36 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British monarchs are crowned on King Edward's Chair. There are other thrones (in Parliament, in various castles and palaces) but they don't seem to have names. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, the asker of the original question may be interested in our article on Synecdoche as a tangentally related topic... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, but Adam, are you saying that with the possible exception of King Edward's Chair, there is no singular physical "Throne of England", but rather several "Thrones of England" in different locations? Are you basically saying that the "Throne of England" refers not to a single specific chair, but rather in a more symbolic sense to any chair the Queen happens to be sitting upon when performing extraordinarily ceremonial acts? Though less likely because a crown is far more portable, is the same possibly true of the so-called "Crown of England"? 70.52.63.36 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Monarch owns and uses several crowns. The Imperial State Crown seems to be the most commonly used. See Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom and Honours of Scotland. Algebraist 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the Windsors have a better throne than did Archie Bunker: [1] , [2] (the "throne" is enshrined at the Smithsonian [3]) , (or Elvis: [4]. Edison (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a throne at St. James's Palace which could be considered the main one, since that's where the Royal Court is officially based. I don't think the Queen sits in it very often, if at all, though. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a throne in the Canadian House of Commons where she sits if she happens to be there (otherwise occupied by the Governor General or the Speaker), and I assume the same is true of other Commonwealth Parliaments. So, yeah, you could say "The Throne" is wherever she is sitting at the moment. It used to be the case, in the middle ages, that there was no official royal court or even an official capital, it was wherever the king happened to be, and this is similar. (I would describe it as peripatetic but that article is about something else.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a throne in the British House of Lords as well from which the Queen gives the Queen's speech. According to Court of St. James's, the court officially moves with the Queen, even though it is based at St. James's, so it is basically the same as you describe for the middle ages. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just couldn't help it when I read Adam's words: "So, yeah, you could say "The Throne" is wherever she is sitting at the moment." No disrespect to her majesty, but does every "seat" she sits upon qualify as a "throne"? :-) I'm only asking because personally, I have THREE of such ceramic "thrones" in my house alone! Sorry for being silly, I just couldn't help myself. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) And in case you hadn't picked up the various subtle clues people have been throwing, England hasn't had a separate monarch from the rest of the UK for a few centuries! She holds the British throne and wears the British crown. "The Queen of England" is such a common phrase that it's easy not to realise, but she's the Queen of Britain (and some other places). 79.66.86.162 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and she holds a United Kingdom throne and wears a United Kingdom crown. But that country is informally known as "Britain". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is informally known as the "Queen of England". Interestingly, I've never heard of her referred to as the "Queen of Britain".

What exactly is this "United Kingdom" Crown and "United Kingdom" throne you're speaking of? All I'm now aware of is King Edward's chair and the Imperial State Crown. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got what we call a throne in the little room down the hall.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara People

What are the natural hair colour, skin colour and eye colour of Hazara people of Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.22 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Hazara people for more information on this subject. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Desi

Could there be such thing as Afro-Desi people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.22 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this before...sure, there could be, if people of African ancestry living in south Asia began to consider themselves desi. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the des in question is in Africa? —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be Afro-Lucys to go with the Afro-Desi s? Sure there could! Edison (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about people of Indian origin living in Africa, have a look at Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin, Indian South Africans, Indians in Uganda, Indians in Kenya and Template:NRI-PIO for people of Indian origin in other African countries. --132.206.124.125 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar in particluar has a long history of Indian residents. See Indians in Tanzania. Rmhermen (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. between WW1 and the Cold War

How did the U.S. emerge as a global super power- economically, culturally, and most importantly politically after the end of WW1 through the beginning of the Cold War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.32 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be an essay assignment, would it? --Tango (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is an essay question.

I am not from America and I am having trouble finishing my essay for my modern American history class. Its for the study guide. Don't worry my final is over a month away so I am hoping someone can help me to know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.32 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try starting from the premise that the Second World War stimulated the U.S. economy tremendously while the circumstances of the war allowed that economy to remain sheltered from direct attack by the Axis powers. The rest of the world was shattered after the war and looked to American industry to produce the objects they needed. Being the only country to have an A-Bomb after the war certainly contributed to political influence. --12.50.77.163 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The atomic bomb actually had very little political effect in the postwar period. The US had of course hoped it would make the Russians more willing to bargain but it quickly became clear that such was not the case. In the brief period where the US had a monopoly on the bomb they found it paradoxically harder, not easier, to really negotiate with the Soviets, who were determined not to look cowed by the Americans (and dismissed the idea that the atomic bomb was a real political force—while at the same time accelerating their own bomb program). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific topic yet? Modern American History is a very wide topic, spanning several hundred years. American history gives a wide overview, which might help you narrow in on a subject. jeffjon (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regard to the previous question, I think - I've merged the sections. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some historians would say that the U.S. emerged as a global power in the 1890s, when its overall population and level of economic and industrial development made it hard to ignore in any calculations of potential military strength, and there was a more assertive/expansionist political mood in its international relations. The Spanish–American War, the negotiations of the Treaty of Portsmouth conducted between Russia and Japan under the supervision of Teddy Roosevelt, and the White Fleet tour of 1908 set the seal on the U.S.'s arrival as a major power (though at that time, Americans generally had very little desire to intervene outside of America's sphere of the Western hemisphere, Liberia, and Pacific islands). AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it simply, WW2 is what made America a super-power. They were just getting over the Great Depression, and had huge unemployment and issues with trade deficits and what-not. The industrial mobilization - building armaments for the war - is what turned America into a country that could mass-produce on a huge scale, and this sorted out the unemployment problem (as did drafting soldiers and sending them off to be killed) as well as sorting out trade problems. America suffered no aerial bombardments an no invasions, unlike the European powers, and therefore had no need to rebuild and start again from scratch after the war, so they could continue from the economic success that they enjoyed from WW2. --ChokinBako (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And put another way: Europe was economically devastated by WW2. So was Russia. So was everybody, basically. Except the USA, which came out of the WWII with a far more robust economy than it had entered it with. (Even without the Great Depression as that early benchmark, the US came out doing better than it had been doing before.) Yes, you can trace the beginnings of America as a world power back a bit earlier, but it was certainly no superpower before then. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last two above: context is everything. America in the 1920s had some of the factors necessary to be a superpower, but (a) there was no driving need to dominate; and (b) there were other contenders at least as powerful. After WWII, the other candidates were exhausted or conquered, and the competition with the Soviet Union provided the necessary impetus. The international institutions created in the late 1940s and early 1950s – the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in particular – were designed to not only rebuild peace and prosperity but also to define the power arrangements among the world’s leading nations.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Export Control intent

After attending a work seminar about export controls (from the US), I have a question about a seeming inconsistency that I still don't understand:

Fact 1: US Law prohibits us to cooperate in any way with a boycott, such as the Arab League boycott of Israel. For example, if a Libyan company requested certification that none of the goods we sold them were of Israeli origin, we are prohibited from complying with their request.

Fact 2: There are countries which we can not ship some or all items to, including Cuba, Iran, South Korea, etc.

What's the motivation behind the anti-boycott legislation? It's not simply a case-by-case basis, but it seems to me to conflict with our export control laws. In basic terms, we aren't allowed to do business with certain countries, but we're aren't allowed to refuse to do business with any country at all. What's the difference that I can't see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjon (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, but maybe the federal anti-boycott law is designed to prevent other levels of government from instituting a boycott without the approval of the federal congress. For example, it may prevent the president from issuing a boycott as an executive order. Or, more likely, specific states may want to pass legislation restricting trade of a good that the state happens to export a lot of. This would stop the individual states from being able to craft foreign policy.NByz (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, on the executive level, that would clash with the Trading with the Enemy Act, so it's probably more for the states.NByz (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may also have to do with the idea that it prevents non-governmental groups, such as private companies, from acting ex-officio as only the government itself should. US companies should not be made to officially comply with the sanctions imposed by other nations, Any official recognition of a boycott by a third-party country could be seen as potentially running against the general foreign policy of the United States. Basically, if Libya wants to boycott Isreal, that's their business. However, the should not be able to coerce U.S. based companies to participate, and U.S. based companies should not feel compelled to comply with such boycotts, especially where such actions run counter to the Government's own stated policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real inconsistency; the anti-boycott law basically prevents someone in the U.S. from promising someone outside the U.S. not to buy from Israel in future. It's partly an ass-covering clause for U.S. corporations, since if Arab companies ask them to sign a contract promising not to buy from Israel, the U.S. corporations can point to the law, and say that regretfully they're legally forbidden to sign such a contract. It's not any kind of broad anti-boycott measure in general (people are perfectly free to spontaneously decide who they don't want to buy from), but is designed to prevent U.S. companies from participating as 3rd parties in other countries' boycotts. By contrast, U.S. trade bans are usually direct (preventing people in the U.S. from trading with certain specified other countries), not 3rd-party... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a person?

A ballot proposition currently at issue in Colorado would add the following definition to the state constitution: "The terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." This proposition is another move by Pro-life forces to bring about an end to legal abortions. The article on Person discusses the person/non-person debate and includes the statement that "The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionalist understanding of personhood theory, while other communities, such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected the personhood theory as biased against human exceptionalism." Can someone clarify for the me the nature of this apparent lack of theological / philosophical agreement between the Vatican and Evangelicals, who otherwise seem to be united in their opposition to abortion? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its because they use religious views and not evidence/reason/science to deduct a proper answer, thus their answers are generally just made up and will of course be different, even if they have the same 'point of view'.--Dacium (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As person of faith I object to Dacium's overt "religion-bashing". Unfortunately I'm not a Christian so I'm not qualified to provide a more direct response to your question. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC

Don't worry about Davium. He's not using evidence/reason/science to decide what he things about religion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human exceptionalism means that you see humans as different from all other animals. Not just different in the way that horses are different from mice, but exceptionally different. Christians say "in God's image" but many atheists also believe in human exceptionalism. The Catholics think that the soul is formed at conception. Perhaps this is too animalistic for some Protestant Christians. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a person of logic, I object to 70.52.63.36 characterizing Dacium's comment as "religion-bashing." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a notion of personhood that was actually "deducted" from evidence, reason, and science, instead of having been "made up". Haven't seen one yet. Which is not surprising, as the concept of "person" is something of a fiction. As to the OP, I think the sentence quoted can be read as saying that the Catholic church and evangelical Christians are mostly in agreement here, just as one might expect: the CC has a theory of human exceptionalism, and evangelicals reject some other theory because it is biased against the Catholic theory or a very similar one of their own. Or it could mean something else. The sentence is pretty confusing, and the paragraph containing it is unclear as well. It should be rewritten by someone who knows the theology and underlying philosophy. I do know that at least some evangelicals share the Catholic idea that the moment of fertilization is when the soul comes into being. I think this goes all the way to Aristotle (who else?) and his theory of form and matter, but I am not an expert. (And I do not mean to bash Aristotle, a reasonable man of science whose theory had nothing to do with Christian theology and who, it might be expected, would not have considered using the pill to be murder, even if he was against abortion, as he may have been.) Anyway, the article is in dire need of expert help and stylistic revision.--Rallette (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by why you thought that parenthesis was necessary. Not as in "Was that really necessary?" chiding someone, but as in really why you felt Aristotle needed defending, why you thought your previous statement might be taken as bashing him, why he would not consider the pill murder (?), how he was actually a reasonable man of science, what this has to do with anything. Actually, that's probably too long, sorry. But I am intrigued by the thought processes that went into adding that. 79.66.86.162 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would point out that English common law, adopted by the American states, holds that a tort cannot be committed unless the fetus has quickened, kicked. This has been the rule for centuries.00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)~75Janice

Massacre of Glencoe - the song

Does the famous song "Massacre of Glencoe" (Jim McLean) have a Wikipedia article? Thanks in advance. --87.114.45.173 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is an entry, diabolically entitled Massacre of Glencoe. No wonder you could not find it.~~ Oops, misread the question. Sorry! There does not seem to be an article on the song.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor on Jim McLean, at least with that spelling. —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes of fame... in 1700

Are there any instances of what would later become the "five minutes of fame" phenomenon in the 1700s in England, when the press was starting to get some clout? You know, something happens to a nobody, the event becomes a touchstone for some political movement, and the person is suddenly and briefly famous. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I've ever heard to your quote of "five minutes of fame" is the far more recent notion coined by Andy Warhol referring to 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps you may be confusing Warhol's saying with some other. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Jenkins certainly got his little moment in the spotlight, helping to launch the War of Jenkins' Ear... AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any plumbers in 1700? They seem to be good at getting 15 minutes of fame today. Edison (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Selkirk was a relative nobody before his ante litteram robinsoniad. But he's still pretty famous, so he fails that test.--Rallette (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Tofts is a good example of someone grabbing their fifteen minutes in the early 18th century. Warofdreams talk 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]