Humanities desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

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.

April 23

obligations of trustee holding bare title in a deed of trust

Is the trustee on a California (non-judicial) Deed of Trust, obligated to convey notice of code violation from a public entity (City) to the beneficiary (of the Deed of Trust) / servicer for the Beneficiary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasenine (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk cannot offer legal advice. Please ask an attorney. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of fact, not a request for advice. Remember to assume good faith. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Form vs. Content?

I've been trying to distinguish one from the other but I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between film form and film content. Associating motifs, location, social concerns, events, long takes, editing structure, factual information ... form or content? Especially applying to documentary film... thank youBreadchastick (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film form is how it is presented. Film content is what is presented. For example, a long take is how you may present something. Factual information is what you present in some way. -- kainaw ™ 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this a little and make a straightforward situation slightly more confusing, the form can and often does enable the content: for example, if the long take is about a guy sitting down and looking bored, you're giving the viewer information that someone is very bored and nothing's happening. But even then, the form and the content are two separate things; it's just that there's a relationship between the two. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the distinction between content and style in Literature - what you write about, and how you write about it. If you were one of the crew looking at the film set during filming, then what you would see would be the content. The rest of it is the form. An analogy: if you got a class of art students to paint a vase of flowers, then the vase of flowers would be the content, and the various ways they painted it would be the form. 89.241.44.96 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosies" and hard hats

Did any Rosie the Riveter were a hard hat while on her job? I've seen pictures of many "Rosies" wearing bandanas on their heads.69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, hardhats were made out of aluminum in the '30s and then fiberglass in the '40s. I'm almost certain both of these were rationed to the government for the war effort. Livewireo (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has at least one photo [1] of a Rosie wearing what appears to be a hard hat of some sort. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardhats were not used by workmen during world war 2 to the extent they are today. A workman might have worn a normal hat (fedora?) while Rosie might have worn a bandana over her hair, like in the classic poster. 5 of 6 illustrations in our Rosie article show soft head coverings. Unless people are constantly dropping dangerous objects, workmen are reluctant to be burdened with hardhats. It is usually the employer who mandates wearing them, to reduce liability. Edison (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone could ever prove that no Rosie ever wore a hard hat while working. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially considering the whole photo thing I pointed out earlier. That would challenge any attempt at such a proof. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a modern company where wearing hardhats is mandated, I have noted people running to get the hardhat and other mandated protective gear before a photo is taken. If it is hot, inconvenient, or cumbersome, workers are likely to omit wearing it, especially if there are not lots of dangerous things falling from above. Been there. Edison (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Can the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union because I live in the UK and we're being taken for a mug. Our unemployment has skyrocketed while Eastern European individuals are squandering our jobs and we pay enormous amounts to the EU and we're being pressured into abandoning the pound sterling in favor of the euro. So can we withdraw --Thanks, Hadseys 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that membership in the EU is entirely voluntary, so yes, you could withdraw. However, that would mean losing the favorable trade terms with the rest of the EU nations, which would have a catastrophic effect on the UK economy. That's why your government hasn't done so. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I think what you clearly see as evil provides a mechanism for withdrawal. And by the way, blaming immigrants is a lazy excuse. Unemployment is a global problem, not limited to the UK so you can't really blame immigrants. I would suggest you reconsider your opinion. But hey, this isn't a place for opinions. Computerjoe 's talk 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was merely that it seems more eastern europeans have more jobs than ordinary british people. Surely it should be we get served first as opposed to them --Thanks, Hadseys 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in too many cases the native British people will not take the jobs on offer while the eastern europeans have been willing to do the work. In any case, with the reduction in the value of sterling, many of the eastern europeans have since gone home anyway. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points of union (in any context) is to at least blur the distinction between the component parts (in some cases entirely removing them). The idea was that the people of Europe would see themselves as European first, and British, French, whatever second. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "squander" a job? —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically speaking, could England withdraw from the United Kingdom? After all, it's the only country in the union that doesn't have it's own devolved parliament... Duomillia (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England is really only a geographical term. The legal entity is England and Wales. But I suppose it's possible that the people of England could rise en masse and declare themselves a country independent of the rest of the UK. Likely? Nah. It's much more likely that the UK itself could be expelled from the very Commonwealth of which it is the mother. This was raised as a slightly serious possibility at a CHOGM meeting in Vancouver (I think) during Margaret Thatcher's time. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. England and Wales are two separate entities in many respects (for example, Wales has its own devolved Assembly), but are considered as one in many other respects. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "CHOGM meeting" a RA acronym? —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. But it sounds a lot better to refer to "a CHOGM meeting in Vancouver" than "a CHOGM in Vancouver". -- JackofOz (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do say so. :) It's also better than "CHOG meeting" - nobody would know what you're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea... Since England is by far the largest country in the union, it would be more like throwing out the other countries (whether they would choose to remain united or become independent, I don't know, it would be up to them). I don't know of any precedent for forcing a region to secede against its will (there is some for giving a region to another country, but that is very different). I doubt the international community would be very supportive of the idea and it would be an interesting situation with regards to succession of states - the rest of the UK might well end up with the UK's seat on the UN security council! --Tango (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to forcing a country into independence: like any relationship break-down, in the end it's hard to say who wanted it to go. When the Soviet Union broke up, not all of the countries were necessarily enthusiastic about the prospect of independence, but in the end everyone "chose" to go their separate ways, circumstances being what they were. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal would be a simple matter - repeal of the European Communities Act. Alternatively, as already noted, the Lisbon Treaty would provide a formal mechanism. Neither of those would, however, do anything to mitigate the economic disaster that renting the UK out of our Europeans markets would do. Given that a pillar of the EU is freedom of movement, have you considered looking for work in one of the 26 member states? --Saalstin (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it is not a question of whether or how the UK would be "allowed" to leave the EU, but the question of whether its people think leaving the EU is worth the cost, considering all the benefits which it will lose. It seems that a majority of the people, or at least a majority of their elected representatives, don't think such a move would be worth it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when sovereign and independent states like Virginia (1788) and South Carolina (1787) voluntarily joined the United States by ratifying the Constitution, and later attempted to secede in 1860 and 1861, the U.S. sent troops to invade them, murder their citizens, and destroy their assets until they surrendered. I'm not saying the EEU would send the likes of William Tecumseh Sherman or U.S. Grant to invade Britain, but it's worth thinking about before any rash actions. Edison (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principle's already been established that withdrawal from European Union isn't a problem - Greenland have pulled out, and the United Kingdom have already (1975) had a vote on whether or not to stay in, which wasn't met by any threat of force if the alternative decision was reached --Saalstin (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployment in the UK has soared because the huge blow on the banking sector. This has nothing to do with Eastern Europeans. The UK is not being pressured to join the Euro. Joining the Euro implies having a stable currency for some years, a condition that the UK is far from fulfilling. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Plus, a lot of the Eastern Europeans who came over here to take up the jobs that locals refused when the going was good have gone back now, because unemployment is rising. That means they think they'll do better in their country of origin than in the UK (indicating things are really not good here). On the flip side, apparently UK fruit farms have received a lot more applications for jobs from natives this year than they've been used to in the last decade or so. 80.41.1.247 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]