Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

Czechoslovakian party organization

Hello, dear Wikipedians.

I have two question pertaining to the Communist party of Czechoslovakia (63-69). First, how could Novotny avoid splitting the office of party first secretary and president, after the (though belated) de-Stalinization??

I am reading on Novotny's wikipedia article that he was First Secretary, and then Dubcek took over as First Secretary in 68. Am I correct in identifying that there was ONE party organization, but two parties (the novelty Slovakian and the 'main' Czech), with each their first secretaries? In that respect, it can be said that Dubcek took over in '63 "as first secretary of the Slovak section" (Rothschild, 2008, p134). Consequently, in '68, Dubcek became party first secretary.

Thank you for any answers! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there was one CPCz, but that the Communist Party of Slovakia functioned as an autonomous unit within CPCz. There was thus no 'Czech' branch of the party analogous to the Slovak branch. The Slovak party had its own leadership, but were also represented in the national leadership of CPCz. The first secretary of the Slovak party was subordninate to the first secretary of the Czechoslovak party. --Soman (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps much, but in Yugoslavia which could be said to have been in some respect a similar country, there were nominally independent "Leagues of Communists" for each state inside the country (thus you would have a League of Communists of Croatia or Serbia or Macedonia) each with their own leadership (the so-called Central Committees, fully known as CC of the League of Communists Bosnia or Slovenia or whatnot) and all of them governed by the umbrella League of Communists of Yugoslavia - this one having its own Central Committee as well. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Communist Party of Spain has a federal structure, with a Communist Party of Andalusia, Communist Party of Galicia, etc.. What differentiates CPCz from the Yugoslav party and PCE is that there was one autonomous party-within-the-party but most of CPCz did not belong to any autonomous party. --Soman (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An analogous case would be the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which for decades had republican communist party in all SSRs except the Russian SFSR (only in 1990 was such a party formed). So roughly half of the members of CPSU were members of a republican CP and the other half (in Russian SFSR) were members directly of the CPSU. --Soman (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient demolition

How were very large buildings demolished in the days before cranes and explosives? Cevlakohn (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name examples of large buildings before the days of cranes or explosives? The Parthenon, the Pyramids? I think they either fell down and became ruins or were kept in use. Cranes were necessary to build most large buildings. Crowbar (tool) or pick-axes perhaps. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What period are you thinking about? Mediaeval castles in Europe were physically attacked by various means, including battering rams at weak points, undermining (to cause their collapse), and fire. This might give you some ideas. Similar means could obviously have been used outside wartime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punching a hole through the wall to get access was not the same as demolishing them. Although I vaguely recall that one or two or so of castles might have been demolished for political reasons, to remove a potential power-base. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could wait for an earthquake or some other disaster to destroy the building (like the Colossus of Rhodes). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Parthenon (mentioned above) was destroyed by explosives in 1687 by forces led by Francesco Morosini:

"How it dismayed His Excellency to destroy the beautiful temple which had existed three thousand years!".^{[citation needed]}

War would probably be the most common reason to deliberately want to destroy a structure in the "ancient" world, and before cranes or explosives became available for this purpose it was certainly more difficult but could still be done with enough time and labor. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Trebuchet was highly effective in siege warfare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others are talking about enemy destruction, but I think the OP is asking about ordinary demolition. The fact that quite a few ancient buildings (or their ruins) are still around suggests that, in general, "they didn't". Once a building was built, why destroy it? One answer would be, to build something else from its stones - which is why the external cladding from the pyramids was taken off, as well as significant chunks of the Roman collosseum (sp?). It's only relatively recently that humans have been obsessed with total destroying their own buildings and putting new ones up, for no other reason than because they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of China is going the same way [1]. If a building or structure falls into disuse quite often it will be demolished, or as Bugs points out, will be used as building material for new structures. Jack forbes (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although some impressive specimens still exist, a large majority of ancient buildings simply doesn't exist anymore. And a large part of those buildings was already demolished during ancient times (for example we have no intact example of an insula in the city of Rome itself, although the city most likely consisted mostly of that type of buildings, some going as high as seven stories). The most frequent causes was probably war, fire or collapses ocurring on account of faulty structures. But this often still left enough ruins to require proper demolition. This was done by hand, cheap labour was readily available during most of the period of the Roman Empire. There are also numerous instances of reused building materials turning up in excavations of later buildings. Most of the city of Rome in the medieval and Renaissance times consisted of buildings constructed with Roman era building materials. My examples mainly concern Rome, but much of it is probably applies for other ancient cultures as well. Except for the Mesopotamian cultures, that mostly used mudbrick as construction materials. These dissolved within a relatively short period of time (10-20 years), and the entire structure had to be rebuilt. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Spolia. 92.15.31.75 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were more likely to be re-used for other purposes than demolished. Given the much lower standard of living of those days, buildings were much more expensive to build, so you didnt just knock them down. I recall one very rare example of a church or chapel that was converted into a barn somewhere in England. Even nowadays in England, people are reluctant to demolish old buildings and prefer to convert them. That is due to them being solidly built, stylish, and spacious compared to the cardboard dolls-houses that are built now. 92.29.127.37 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herod's Temple in Jerusalem supposedly took thousands of men ten years to build, but it was supposedly torn down quickly by the Romans. It seems like it would take some appreciable fraction of the time to pile up the stones of a great temple or castle when you went to unpile them. I suppose that step one would be looting it of any nice furnishings, followed by filling it with rubble, oil etc and burning it, which might cause a lot of stonework to collapse, like the White House walls collapsed when the British forces torched the place in 1814. The conqueror could then using local forced labor to "defortify" a castle by demolishing some gates and towers, so no one could use a fortified place to defy the conquering army in the near future, without literally demolishing it such that not one stone was left standing on another. Some sections of ruined walls of Herod's temple were still standing hundreds of years later. A ruined palace, temple, or castle would be more demoralizing to the locals than the complete absence of it. Simply desecrating a temple by making it a residence or a temple of the conqueror's religion would also be a likely course, like Hadrian's Tomb becoming a papal palace in Rome, or the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople becoming a mosque. Edison (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian's Wall and Fountains Abbey are two examples of many ruined places in Britain, with some interesting links. 92.15.28.182 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that common for large structures to be deliberately demolished (as opposed to being abandoned and left to decay or be quarried for stone). It was only worth demolishing something if it was a threat (e.g. an enemy or unauthorised fortification), or it took up a particularly important site. Our article on slighting - partial destruction of enemy fortifications - is weak, but undermining and simple battering were generally effective. For example, at Raglan Castle, apparently undermining was attempted; when this failed, it was attacked with picks [2]. Warofdreams talk 00:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The keep of Rochester Castle was demolished in 1215 by undermining; ie digging a tunnel underneath one corner - filling the tunnel with "40 fat pigs" - setting fire to them and waiting for the pit-props to burn through[3]. Worked a treat. A similar method (using car tyres instead of pigs) was used until recently by steeplejacks to demolish brick chimneys[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous major differences between ancient Roman times and medieval Europe, not least the fact that they probably built far more large constructions in the era of Mediterranean Antiquity than in Medieval Europe. But for the sake of argument, the example of a lord deliberately tearing down a lesser lords castle to ensure that a potential enemy is "declawed", is something that you can experience innumerable times in the age of feudalim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but a friend of mine visiting India reported seeing a multi-story building being demolished from the top down, by a large number of workers with sledgehammers. (Excuse the implication that India is stuck in the ancient world, of course it isn't, but there is cheap labour which presumably is more economical than wrecking machines or explosives.) 213.122.60.193 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Names

What nation-state has the most syllables in its name? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean in English rather than in the native tongue. Names are often contested, which makes answering this tricky, plus there are official names and common names. For example, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the name often used by neutral parties to refer to the Republic of Macedonia. Then you have things like "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to refer to the country commonly referred to as the UK or just Britain. I didn't count the syllables in those two examples, sorry. --Viennese Waltz 12:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In UN membership it is The former Yugoslav..., sorted on The, just after Thailand. Comes to 15 syllables if you say Mass-e-don-ee-a rather than Mass-e-don-ya. UK, in full, is 14. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is 15 syllables when I say it. Does 'Ireland' only have two syllables officially? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the common names in our list of sovereign states, "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and "Federated States of Micronesia" both have, on my reckoning, 11 syllables, and "Bosnia and Herzegovina" has 9. ("United States of America" also has 9 syllables, but is listed there simply as "United States".) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll offer the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but also note that all of us our conducting our syllable counts in English. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty

Why does the US still use the death penalty when every other developed country has abolished it? --J4\/4 <talk> 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all US states use it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Capital punishment in the United States, especially the "Controversy" and "History" sections. Paul (Stansifer) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been abolished in every other developed country. Most definitions of "developed country" would include Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, all of which practice capital punishment, while it remains legal in Israel and South Korea, too.

And India. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitions would say India is a developing country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta depends on where you are in India; it greatly varies from place to place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevant that is to most definitions of a "developing country". There are also very rich areas of China, Brazil, or Nigeria. That doesn't make them developed countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really possible to paint countries like India with one brush. With someplace like that, there are so many regional variations that it's not feasible to just put a label on the whole country; there are individual parts, some of which are far better off than others, so development is better measured on a regional level. But this is way off-topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Don't most of the Islamic republics allow it too? Or is the OP displaying some Euro-superior bias? :) As to why some states in the US use it - ya got me, as it would probably be cheaper just to stick them in a max-security prison for life without parole. But there is a mindset among many US citizens, that if someone has committed a horrible crime, taking the life or lives of others just to be doing it, then that guy has forfeited his own "right to life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple view is that there should be three elements in deciding the consequences of criminal behaviour - punishment, protecting society from the criminal, and rehabilitation. Capital punishment doesn't leave much room for the third element. I guess those places still allowing capital punishment must regard the first two elements as having overriding importance. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've heard it said that the death penalty is not really punishment, it's permanent removal. They've forfeited their right to life. And how are you going to "rehabilitate" the likes of someone like John Wayne Gacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an old saying about if you're willing to do the crime, you have to be willing to do the time. By implication, someone who takes the life of another willingly, has to be willing to suffer the same fate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly Gacy wasn't a nice person. In Australia, with no death penalty, Martin Bryant was given "35 life sentences + 1,035 years without parole" for his record breaking shooting spree at Port Arthur. I understand that he is kept pretty much in isolation in order to protect him from other prisoners. (Tasmania has a very small population). The cost of his lifetime imprisonment will be very high. HiLo48 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gacy was evil. In the old superstitious days, it probably would have been said that he was possessed by Satan. And in some sense, he was. A lot of us who lived in Illinois and hence were closer to the case, especially resented how he abused the legal system for so many years, when there was no question whatsoever that he was guilty. That accounts in part for the unseemly spectacle of a cheering crowd outside Stateville the night he was finally snuffed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how it would compare with the costs associated with fighting the death penalty. And therein lies the dilemma as regards capital punishment in the USA. It used to be that once the guy was found guilty, it wasn't long before the sentence was carried out. Now it takes like 10 years. In addition to the cost of simply keeping him alive for 10 years, there are also the legal-system costs connected with all the appeals, even if the guy doesn't seriously fight the conviction (Tim McVeigh comes to mind - although he did fight it for awhile). Which is a practical (as opposed to emotional or moral) argument against the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That cost is probably nothing compared to the cost of having about 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in population. See United States incarceration rate. HiLo48 is probably on to something. I think the general liberalism/socialism, and organised religion's lack of importance also plays a big role in several of these countries, at least in Scandinavia where I'm from. I think the Scandinavian judicial systems generally works well without the death penalty. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have asked about developed democratic countries. Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan aren't democratic, so they wouldn't count. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that strict definition, you're ruling the UK out of the discussion also (albeit from the other side of the list). It's also a misnomer that the USA "uses the death penalty". There may still be some federal crimes which carry out death sentences, but most executions are at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan has free and fair elections. It is primarily parliamentary democracy. The monarchy is just a ceremonial figurehead; it doesn't make policy. See Government of Japan. Taiwan has a complicated system that is mostly democratic. Singapore is complicated. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting articles on the USA situation include Capital punishment in the United States and Capital punishment by the United States federal government. As a practical matter, it seems that the US federal government seldom carries out the death penalty. Most of the crimes covered are at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to this is that most states still have the death penalty because the politicians haven't decided to repeal it; the politicians haven't repealed it because it wouldn't be politically smart; and it wouldn't be politically smart because a politician who votes to repeal the death penalty might be labeled "soft on crime" or "doesn't care about victims of crime." Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has chipped away at the death penalty over the past 40 years, outlawing it for certain types of people and crimes, but has not yet decided to go all the way and declare all capital punishment cruel and unusual. In 1976, the court, in a 7-2 ruling, said capital punishment was not cruel and unusual, and the court is generally very averse to completely overturning previous rulings in the absence of a change in circumstances or new information that indicates the justices in the previous case might have been wrong about something. Anyway, five of the nine members of the current court are right-wingers and likely to be personally supportive of capital punishment. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles stated that a majority of Americans consistently favor the death penalty. And in 1976, the high court was quite a bit more liberal than it is now, so you're right that no court decision is likely forthcoming to overturn the death penalty on constitutional grounds. In theory, Congress could try to do so, but the constitutionality of it would likely be immediately appealed, and likely declared invalid. It would probably require a constitutional amendment, and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, congress could abolish the death penalty at the federal level with no challenge. The question would be if congress could abolish the death penalty for the states which is a much trickier question. Probably not, though it could do so via power of the purse, much as it did for a national speed limit in the 1970's and 1980's (i.e. any state which has a legalized death penalty receives no federal dollars until they abolish it). That would be a perfectly legal way to handle it. However, to outright abolish it for the states is likely unconstitutional. --Jayron32 01:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Congress could abolish the federal death penalty. However, they would also run into political trouble, since that would remove it for crimes committed against the USA, such as what McVeigh did. So while they certainly have the power to abolish the federal death penalty, I doubt they would do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans still have an unfounded belief that if someone is found guilty of murder, he really did it. DNA tests have shown in a large number of cases that the person was guilty of being a poor minority person with deficient legal representation, and that the DNA left on the victim came from someone else. Police sometimes even get confessions from innocent people. Prisons are underfunded and poorly managed, so they are places where the most evil and vicious inmates have the opportunity to make life hell for the weaker and less evil. It is offensive to many when a Gacy (murderer of 33 young men) or Richard Speck(murderer of 8 student nurses) is seen as having too good of a time in prison. A video came out in 1988 of Speck having sex. Gacy "lived an artist's dream," produced paintings, one of the Seven Dwarves with picks, offensive because he buried his victims in the crawl space of his house. Other such murderers have, while imprisoned, married one of their deranged female "pen pals" and had conjugal visits. There is no perfect solution to what to do with such killers; prison for life keeps them away from the general population, but their perceived "good life" is offensive to society and especially the victims' lived ones. A speedy execution kills some innocent. A supermax prison is more expensive than politicians and taxpayers are willing to support, so the evil become top dogs in understaffed prisons they effectively rule. Edison (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Found guilty"? Hah! We don't wait that long! The TV News tells us all we need to know to sit around pontificating on who deserves to die and who can never be rehabilitated. APL (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit on what Edison said about "DNA tests have shown in a large number of cases that the person was guilty of being a poor minority person..." See innocence project, James Calvin Tillman, Cameron Todd Willingham and The case for innocence from PBS Royor (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say in our article, could you define "large number"? I mean are we talking 20%, or 5% or what? Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts on PostConviction DNA Exonerations in the United States, also highly related PBS frontline video, watch "Burden of Innocence" on May 1, 2003 and "Death by Fire" on Oct 19, 2010. Royor (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best country to live in?

--J4\/4 <talk> 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Finland. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those rankings are weighted by "economic dynanism" and "political environment" which could be anything the (American?) rankers like. 92.28.252.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That is going to depend on what you are looking for. If you like warm weather and beaches, I would not advocate Finland. Googlemeister (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, it depends on which languages you can speak. APL (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..or Costa Rica, apparently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on one's income and personal preference as to climate, standard of living, lifestyle. Many people of means choose New York, while others opt for southern Spain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the Newsweek study (cited by Comet Tuttle) and the wealth of information on this site are interesting and informative. (When did New York become a "country"?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought that I would show any bias, but I would say that my own country is generally considered the best country to live in. Nope, no bias from me. Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Some consider the weather in Scotland to be slightly dreary", it says. It's Costa Rica for me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is onto something: The "best" place to live is the place that "feels like home". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...unless you want to get away from home, of course. (Say, from Scotland to somewhere dry and sunny. ;-) ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOps my bad! I was actually thinking about specific places rather than entire countries. Saying the USA is vague, and a lot of celebs do choose the NYC. As for countries Spain is very popular not to mention the jet-set zone comprising the French Riviera and Monaco (for those with a ten-figure bank account).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large country with a reasonable climate (such as the USA) can allow for almost any lifestyle someone would want. So to some, small-town America would be perfect, and large cities would be horrible; and for some others, the opposite would be true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone like me who loves medieval history the USA doesn't offer what Europe can. There may be climatic and variety in lifestyle, but America doesn't have the cultural diversity that the Old World continents possess. I am from Los Angeles, by the way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in countries with a warm climate and wonderful though they were it's still Scotland for me. The question put by the OP has no definitive answer in my opinion. Oh, and Ghmyrtle, a wee bit of bracing weather does no-one any harm. In fact, it makes a man of you. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I well remember the stormy seas between Walls and Foula, and the effect it had on the contents of my stomach... Character-building for sure. But we're going off-topic.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points made by Jeanne above make it clear, as Jack says, that there is no one right answer. The answer is personal, and is the answer to the question, "What do I want?" That's something only the OP can answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A decent health service that still works even if you're poor for whatever reason would be my first filter. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the best answer is probably "Whatever nation you're already a citizen of." (If that happens to be USA, you might consider Massachusetts, which has made a half-hearted stab at socialized healthcare.) APL (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer is easy: just embrace nationalism, and you will be fine with the country where you live. Or figth to fix what's need to be fixed in the country, but in any case ou woldn't even consider changing it for another one. MBelgrano (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no place like home!" Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the real answer

the real answer is as follows. Say there is, besides gender male/female, gender2 a/b/c. People are divided evenly among the three. In some countries, a's are revered, b's and c's are shunned. In others, b's revered, a's and c's shunned, and in yet others, c's are revered. What is the best country to live in? On the face of it, all countries are even, because people are in a, b, and c evenly.
However, this is misleading. What you are really interested in is "what is the best country for ME to live in." So, you have to ask yourself: are you an a, b, or c? Real life is much like that except instead of just gender and gender2, there are a few dozen notable traits a person would have when it comes to how good it would be for them to live in a certian country.
Let's assume I'm am American, I have $20,000 in savings, and I have a Ph.D. in molectrical chemistrineering. The "best country" is, in this case, radically different than for someone who is a Brit (and therefore European citizen), has "some undergraduate" study, and no savings, having to rely on what they will make in the local market from day one (i.e. without a period of buffer time). In summary, you are probably asking because you would like to know what it would be like for you to live and work in a certain country. Unfortunately, you have to know yourself, your nationality, education, skills, interests, languages you can speak, and, in fact, your personality. I recommend you visit a few radically different countries for 3-6 months each, living and working in them. After you have done that with 4-5, you can then look at a comparison of all countries by many, many metrics, and have enough information to know what country will be the best one -- for you. Traitor. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William & Kate Middleton

Resolved

The ITV news has just said that 'the excited young couple will one day be King and Queen'. Will Kate Middleton become Queen? I was under the impression that the UK only has a single monarch and any spouses are generally given lesser titles, such as Prince, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wife of a reigning king, such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, becomes Queen consort. The husband of a reigning queen, such as Philip Mountbatten, is a Prince consort. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of British queens, the Queen regnant and the Queen consort. In effect, "King" outranks "Queen", while "Queen" outranks "Prince". Queen Elizabeth is a queen regnant, i.e. a ruling queen. If Kate becomes Mrs. Prince William, she would become a princess (prince outranks princess), and when he ascends the throne, she would become queen consort. (Feel free to correct me if I'm oversimplifying or if I've got it wrong.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers both. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a little confused by Prince Charles's arrangements re his 2nd and current wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. They've announced that when he becomes king, she will be called the Princess Consort. She will in fact be the Queen Consort but just not called that. Even today, she is the Princess of Wales, but chooses not be called that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh my memory: Charles and Diana were divorced, right? Let's suppose Diana were still among the living. If so, would that have made any difference as regards the titles Camilla is allowed to have (even if she doesn't use them)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While married to Charles, Diana was Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (because the wife of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales is automatically that). After their divorce, she became Diana, Princess of Wales (note, not The Princess of Wales, and no HRH). That was simply a courtesy title, mainly because her children were living and they are members of the Royal Family. Had she had no kids, or if they’d predeceased her, there’d have been less of a case to allow her a courtesy title because she would have severed all her connections with the RF. Currently, if Camilla and Charles were so minded, Camilla could quite legitimately use the title Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (for the same reason as Diana was called that when she was his wife). It has nothing to do with any previous consorts Charles may have had or whether or not they're alive. (Analogy: the current wife of Mr Smith is Mrs Smith, even if his ex-wife continues to use the surname Smith.) But they prefer her to be known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that fawning I've just seen on all channels on tv makes me sick. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh... No invitation for you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've followed this story on "all channels" - and then complain about it? Reminds of the old woman complaining of the neighbours having sex, and when the police say they can't see anything, she tells them you've got to crawl up on top of the wardrobe and use this telescope to get the best view. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or she produces a home video she made as 'proof' :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this country we have remote controls, and when you see something you don't care for on one channel, you flick to another...and another. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, channel surfing. So, were the British equivalents of ESPN and Animal Planet also carrying the royal news? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only get four channels, as I have a life, of sorts. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you interrupted that "life" to watch something on TV you had no interest in seeing? Corvus cornix_talk 00:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I interupted my life for two minutes while tired in the hope of finding something of interest, before giving up in disgust. Two of the channels, the BBC and ITV, showed the same grovelling interview. 92.28.250.11 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If those channels are 1, 2, 3 and 4, then I'm pretty sure that not all of them featured fawning over them at the same time as you flipped through. Also, what does having a life have to do with it? If you don't have a box giving you digital channels, you're not going to have any channels at all when they switch off terrestrial. And BBC 4 means you can watch something interesting on the rare occasions you watch, rather than channel surfing for long enough for both BBC 1 and 2 to apparently feature fawning. Why switch the TV on at all if you 'have a life', have only 4 channels, and haven't got something you want to watch? If you get a freeview box, you can also generally listen to the radio on the TV: useful. 86.163.213.68 (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come you've only got four channels? I thought standard telly without satellite and cable and whatnot came with five channels these days. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I don't have much of a life so I watch a lot of TV instead, and haven't seen anything remotely related to this for the last couple of years. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many areas have terrible reception for Channel Five, to the point where it can't be seen at all - I think there is some interference from French stations when you go too far South. 90.195.179.106 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have no channels at all in 2012 unless you go digital. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian living in Thailand tried by an American court?

While the alleged crimes of Victor Bout are very serious and would deserve extreme measures, why does an American court have the juristiction to try a Russian living in Thailand, and who may never even have set foot in the US? 92.15.16.149 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bout doesn't indicate he's going to be tried In absentia, but only that charges have been filed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for the U.S. claim of jurisdiction is the charge that Bout conspired to assist terrorist activities aimed at killing or harming U.S. citizens. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See personal jurisdiction over international defendants in the United States. Neutrality^talk 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Any reason we choose" would be a summary of that. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being ... ? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "any reason we choose" would be an apt summary of most laws imposed on peoples that cannot vote on them... something that many countries are familiar with. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short story by Hemingway(?)

Hi all,

I remember reading a story about a man who kept carrier pigeons. His niece/granddaughter who is living with him is not allowed to go out much. She starts dating a man and the uncle/grandfather objects. Only as her boyfriend makes him a present, a carrier pigeon, does the uncle/grandfather approve. He locks the carrier pigeon away while the other pigeons may roam freely. The story ends with his niece/granddaughter crying.

I tried googling back and forth, but I could not find the name of that story. As I said, I think it's been written by Hemingway, but I am not 100% sure...

Any and all help appreciated :) -- RichiH (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "Flight" by Doris Lessing? I googled American short story carrier pigeon. (Although Lessing isn't American). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of most or all of Hemingway's short stories, I'll venture that this does not sound like one of them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pigeon: a fantasy in three acts, by John Galsworthy?(Google books) Albacore (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, that's the one. I could have sworn it was by Hemingway. Oh well, at least now I know why I never found it. Thanks :) -- RichiH (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeons on the grass alas. Ernest on the roof aloof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]