Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 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.

December 29

Would anyone kindly explain how North Korea even OBTAINED Detroit iron?

See here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/kim-jong-il-kim-jong-un-north-korea-lincoln-town-car-limousines/1

I thought North Korean elite were fascinated with German-made eisen, because a lot of scenes in Pyongyang show Mercedeses that ferry around diplomats. Why wouldn't they get a German-built hearse instead? (Even if cash-strapped, could they not find a good used one that is over 25 years old, for a fraction of their original prices?)

Moreover, didn't America embargo the DPRK from trading with them? If so, how would the North Korean government obtain the Lincoln limousines anyhow?

Moreover, when any part breaks down (as does happen more often when cars age), how could they get the spare parts? (It could not be fruitful for a government-employed parts acquirer to call a spare parts warehouse or salvage yard in the US, and ask them to ship it Fed-Ex to North Korea. The representatives on the other end of the call would most likely not believe them.)

Someone please put this mystery to rest. Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Trade embargoes can't prevent private imports – especially via friendly counties. Examples are Americans that like Cuban Cigars, and the CIA setting up ghost companies in foreign countries to do … well I can't tell you that, because then I would have to kill you.--Aspro (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If the parts/vehicles are available to people in China or Russia, then getting them into North Korea is probably not very difficult, for a price. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that they could just get parts through China. However, if they couldn't, another approach is to get many cars of the same model, then cannibalize some to keep the rest running. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And why should they want to buy a cheaper hearse for their dear leader... does he not deserve the best that money can buy? The relative cost to what the average North Korean can afford is not an issue here. Does the US president want to fly around in a presidential Cessna 350 even though America is in many trillions of dollars in debt. Makes North Korea look like its just a little bit over drawn at the bank in comparison -don't you think?Is it not better to keep millions of North Americans/Koreans on the poverty line, than to have our dear leaders travel economy class.--Aspro (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The big diff is that NK or supposed to be a communist nation where "everyone is equal". Obviously some people are far more equal than others. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not better, aspro. A public relations stunt that swings favor toward a leader is by making themselves more humble than before, even if for a temporary gig. (Chrysler executives went to Washington in a Chrysler Aspen to ask for a bailout, after too much public outcry against going in a private jet.)

Did you not look at the link on the top of the subject? The hearse/limo is a 1976 Lincoln Continental. It's already 35 years old, and I *somewhat* pointed out that a 25-year-old Merc would be easier to obtain, and probably maintained better as well. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

70.179.174.101. Your point is a non sequitur (the temporal comparison you make is misleading). Cadillac (part of GM) keep their tooling for longer and therefore spare body panels and other parts are still available long after replacement part for European cars have become unavailable. Collectors of American classic cars will confirm this advantage over collectors of European automobiles of the same vintage. 'You' asked the question, and I can read! I'm attempting to answer it based on what I know. So please, grant me that respect -OK?--Aspro (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To your first point. Robert Nardelli of Chrysler, Rick Wagoner of GM, and Alan Mulally of Ford, had to change their travel habits out of shame rather than any clear preconceived plans to enure themselves to the tax paying public. It was too late for that. A true leader ensures that what ever s/he does is perceived by the populace to be right -they don't humble themselves! Maybe this lack of insight is the origin of your puzzlement in the ways of the world. --Aspro (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A question: Is it possible that the limo used as the hearse (or one of the other limos) is the same limo that carried Kim Il-sung's coffin 17 years ago? They do look similar. Anyway, I find it ironic that they would use American cars as hearses, considering how much they hate America and Lincolns (and Cadillacs for that matter) are famously-American luxury car brands. Perhaps those were locally made cars, but they copied the designs, instead of getting them through Russia or China. And wouldn't they have used Russian or Chinese cars instead? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I also had to ask: Given that North Korea hates the "Imperial" America, he wouldn't have been caught dead in an American-made product. (He still was.)

If Kim had known in advance that his hearses would be American-made, why wouldn't he have traded them out for something Chinese or Russian-made instead? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

They could have bought a Chrysler Imperial for Dear Leader corpse transport. Edison (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he didn't want cheap junk ? If you understand that pretty much everything they say is lies, then it's no surprise they really like American products. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

One perspective I read around the time of the death was that if you're a tinpot dictator with a tiny (albeit nuclear) arsenal, and you want foreigners to treat you nicely, then displaying illogical, irrational behaviour is actually a smart move. If they can't trust your behaviour with that (limited) weaponry, they will just avoid confrontation. So, don't look for logic on the surface. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Per HiLo48, see wikt:crazy like a fox. --Jayron32 04:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't just apply with a small arsenal: see Mutually assured destruction - a nuclear deterrent only works if you can persuade your potential enemies that you are insane enough to actually use it. The problem is of course that your enemies will then assume that you are insane, and be tempted to get their insanity in first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And his hair must have been designed to convince us he was insane. After all, what sane person would intentionally look like that ? StuRat (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussed here: At Funeral of Kim Jong-il, U.S.-Made Limos Stand Out (NYTimes news blog). AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment and voting rights

Is it true that imprisonment permanently disqualifies one from voting? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Any particular country of interest? Whatever, see Disfranchisement#Criminal_conviction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Union. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the state and the level of offense. Misdemeanors generally don't carry a loss of voting rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"American Union"? What's that? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the OP's user page, I would say that's a term that an envious former member of the Soviet Union might apply to the USA. Either that, or he's talking about our national Rugby team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information, it is the Imperial American name for what is often called the "United States of America". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The United States of America is a union in the Americas, so the nickname makes sense. Seems like a silly distinction. You'd think the Imperials would be more creative. Mingmingla (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mexico and Canada are also American Unions The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(facepalm) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes}

For that matter, the Teamsters are an American union. Perhaps Whoop is referring to the Civil War, with the Union opposing the Confederacy. The star field in the US Flag is called the "union". But as Americans, we don't really use the term "American Union" all that often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me of a joke we told (long ago) in Detroit:

"You know, the Teamsters are the third most powerful union in the world, and the UAW is the second most powerful."

"Okay, so, who's the most powerful?"

"The Soviet Union."

--- 108.28.72.88 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (That's me; I forgot to sign in. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

US President vs. US Congress

Recently, I laid my hand on the book Torture Taxi, which describes the black programme of the CIA called "extraordinary rendition". It's a very interesting read, since the book focuses on the public and international response of the programme, along with the activity itself. In the book, when former President Bush (who granted CIA's power to abduct people) was told to curtail (prob. by Congress, I can't remember) his actions of abducting supposed terrorists, he didn't adhere to it. He said that as he is the Commander in Chief of the American military juggernaut, he can, in a nutshell, do whatever he likes, which is somewhat shocking. Can someone explain to me who has the overriding power here, and whether Bush's stubbornness could've been put under control?

Before that, however, is it legal for the CIA to kidnap people on foreign soils? And also, the book really make the US sound like a hypocrite regarding its support of human rights -- can someone explain that also? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There has long been tension (over many issues) between the President and the Congress regarding presidential powers, see Signing statement and Executive order for but two examples. The line between a "law" and a "regulation", as another, makes it somewhat fuzzy as to what actions may be undertaken by the legislature and what by the executive. Regarding the CIAs actions re: extraordinary rendition, and the U.S. actions, you may find Human_rights_in_the_United_States#War_on_Terrorism and links from there as a good launching point for your research. --Jayron32 06:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Congress could impeach the President for violating the Constitution, but only one President was ever removed from office as a result (and even Nixon quit before he was removed by Congress). So, for this approach to work, the President would have to do something very wrong and unpopular (since the Congress is mainly concerned with getting votes and money from voters).

The Congress does have a less severe mechanism of control, however. They could cut off all funding to the CIA. That would quickly get them to pay attention and do as the Congress wishes, to have funding restored. Why didn't they ? Well, many Americans think that extraordinary rendition is OK for Al Queda members (they aren't very popular here). StuRat (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which president was removed from office by impeachment, Stu? I hope you're not thinking of Andrew Johnson. He was acquitted by the Senate and carried on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only Al Qaeda members were taken into custody -- the book says that even innocent civilians were kidnapped and detained for several months, after which they were robbed of their possessions.

@JackofOz, I think Stu was referring to Nixon. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stu should clarify his comment, but it's true that no impeached President has ever been convicted and removed. However, it was almost a certainty that Nixon would have been removed, so he resigned instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Almost certainly would have been removed from office" never equals "was removed from office". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Forced from office" describes it better. He resigned because he thought it a more graceful exit than conviction and expulsion. His explanation at the time was that he was resigning because he had "lost the support of Congress". Euphemisms-R-Us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "forced from office" really captures it, either. Everyone wanted Nixon to stick around and take what was coming to him. They would have much preferred him to remain in office, if only to give them the opportunity of sacking him, rather than have him resign (not to mention then getting a full pardon for any crimes he may have committed in office. That was nobody's idea of justice except Ford's). I can certainly understand that Nixon felt he had to resign, that he felt he was forced out. But to say he was forced out is a different thing. Impeachment proceedings are not undertaken lightly, and certainly not with the view to having the president concerned resigning in mid-process. Some would say that's the coward's way out, most unfitting for a U.S. president. It's analagous to a man on trial for murder, who commits suicide in his cell rather than see the trial out to its conclusion. Commentators might make whatever they want out of that in terms of an implicit admission of guilt, but he goes to his grave technically an innocent man (just as Lee Harvey Oswald did). It's still a most unsatisfactory outcome as far as the justice system is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was Ford's idea of justice, per se. I think it was his idea of what was best for the country in that historical moment. He thought that a trial would be divisive and damaging. Whether he was right or wrong, I'm not going to attempt to say, but certainly it appears to have been a personal sacrifice for him (it probably cost him the election in 1976). --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, there is no question Nixon "had to" leave. And as you say, Ford may have guaranteed his own defeat in 1976, but as I see it he was a true statesman and realized that the country needed to move on. Nixon was notorious for his "enemy's list", and in fact he had countless enemies or opponents, many of them lined up wanting to twist the knife. Ford's decision to "pre-pardon" Nixon took that knife away from them (and possibly planted it in his own political heart). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am neither criticizing nor defending Ford's decision. You can agree or disagree with him that it was the best thing for the country; you can agree or disagree with him that, assuming it was the best thing for the country, that was a sufficient reason to do it.

I was just objecting to the claim that Ford thought it was "justice", with the apparent inference that either Ford agreed with what Nixon had done, or thought that Nixon was above the law. I don't think there's sufficient evidence for either of those propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he at least must have thought it was a just thing to do in all the circumstances, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As you seem to have figured out, I was referring to Nixon having been forced from office under threat of impeachment. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Stu. I actually didn't get that from "only one President was ever removed from office", which I hope you'll agree was somewhat imprecisely worded. It's the sort of wording you'd use of a hypothetical president who was actually impeached by the House of Reps, tried and convicted by the Senate, and had his presidential tenure terminated. That was never the case with Nixon, or anyone else, although Andrew Johnson came within a whisker. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

All the criminals in the world would be surprised to learn that if they help another criminal escape punishment, that means they think it's "just" ("or else they wouldn't have done it", according to JackofOz). They would also be shocked that helping a criminal escape justice means "doing what's best for the country". I'm sure every thief's accomplice would be interested to know that if he helps a thief get away, he'll be praised by BaseballBugs for "realizing that the country needed to move on" and "taking the knife away from" honest citizens trying to bring the thief to justice. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that, at the time, I was among the countless citizens who was all too eager to plunge that metaphorical knife into Nixon. There was also plenty of controversy about Ford "pre-pardoning" Nixon. Some thought it was a "deal" of some kind. Compare his situation with Clinton's. Nixon resigned because he "had to". Clinton stayed because he didn't have to resign. Clinton had sufficient support in the Senate that he knew his impeachment would not stand up. Nixon knew that his would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

" . . . is it legal for the CIA to kidnap people on foreign soils?" — Whether or not it was legal according to US law at any particular date would doubtless be a rich field for very protracted legal argument (during which the kidnapee would remain incarcerated and perhaps more, as some of these people arguably found out). Measures such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and this upcoming one make it a lot more legal now than it used to be. It would more than likely be illegal according to the laws of any given foreign country in which the kidnapping occurred, but the USA's de facto status as biggest kid in the international playground means it can do pretty well what it likes.

" . . . the book really make the US sound like a hypocrite regarding its support of human rights -- can someone explain that also?" — Like most governments for most of history, the USA's practices Realpolitik, so real or perceived hypocrisy would not be a consideration, unless the expected damage to the USA's international standing were calculated to outweigh the advantage gained by the action concerned.

Disclaimer: I am not an American citizen or resident, so do not wear Uncle Sam-tinted spectacles, but I do not think I, or the above, am/is markedly "anti-American"; nor do I suppose that my own government's behaviour has been or would be much different beyond its relatively weaker position. I fully appreciate that others' mileages may differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.95} 90.193.78.56 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree, I don't see anything anti-American in these remarks, just realistic. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bush administration (and the Obama administration has continued this) ascribed to what is known as the Unitary executive theory. It basically says that the entire Executive branch (which includes the CIA) is an extension of the President, and thus an extension of his authority as Commander in Chief. This theory essentially makes it quite difficult for Congress to make laws that curtail the military or intelligence activities of executive agencies. They can, as noted, control the purse-strings, but in practice this power has been entirely toothless when it comes to defense and intelligence budgets. The Courts, who might have been the check on this, have essentially abstained from being involved. The trickiest part here, and it held in the Cold War as well, is that the Commander in Chief is given vast powers to conduct operations for war under the Constitution. In a state of perpetual war, not against any particular country but against shadowy groups both domestic and foreign, this leads to gross bleed-over of powers. Hence the long-standing argument by many that "war" should be reserved for actions between states, and everything else should be a form of police action and governed by standard regulations (e.g. habeas corpus); that we should treat terrorists less like enemy armies, and more like foreign criminals. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In the case of a conflict between the legislative and executive branch, the third branch, the judiciary, may decide. For example, Nixon once decided not to spend money that Congress had allocated for things Nixon didn't like (impoundment). The Supreme Court agreed with Congress that the president couldn't do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty has been that the judiciary has long rolled over for matters of national security. This is especially true with regards to the most recent courts, but is not a new thing at all. They've also been extremely unwilling to go near anything that administrations label "secret" (see the state secrets privilege, an impressively important doctrine that happens to have been founded on an outright lie — United States v. Reynolds), which makes oversight difficult. It's hard to not see the use of "national security" from WWII to the present as an ever-increasing scope of Executive power. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the level of the activity regarding the rendition programme the same as it is a decade ago? I'm guessing Obama, who agreed to eliminate torture against terrorists in 2009 (I think), had decided to wind down the programme? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama allowed the CIA to keep rendition authority, but with "more oversight." I don't know of any numbers about actual activity. In general the Obama administration has shifted towards drone-based assassination as his administration's signature anti-terrorism strategy. (To the dismay of many of his supporters, I might add.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"And also, the book really make the US sound like a hypocrite regarding its support of human rights" -- is this seriously news to you? The truth is, the United States only cares about human rights when it's politically expedient to do so. The CIA has overthrown many democratically elected governments in favor of brutal dictators: see covert United States foreign regime change actions, particularly 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. The CIA has also funded terrorists, and attacked civilian ships itself, to throw Nicaragua's democratically elected Sandinistas out of power: see Iran-Contra affair. More recently, Arab Spring protestors have spread anti-American sentiment in the Middle East because they consider the U.S. an ally of their dictatorial overlords. Egypt was a major American ally, for example, and the fact that tear gas canisters fired upon protestors by the Mubarak regime bore the label "Made in USA" didn't inspire any love for the US. WikiLeaks material and evidence discovered after the Libyan revolution also show that the U.S. had a cozy relationship with Libya's dictator: [1]. Finally, it's no secret that the US allies itself with Saudi Arabia because of its strategic location and vast supplies of soil. Saudi Arabia is a country where women can't drive, work, marry, or even get admitted into a hospital without her guardian's approval. American support for Saudi Arabia is, in effect, equivalent to supporting gender apartheid, if not slavery. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought there was something fishy about the US Gov, like its thirst for oil, etc. I didn't really suspect that they were behind all the acts you mentioned above. The USSR was on the extreme left, and the US is on the extreme right (maybe Nazi Germany was), which is never good, so is imperialism. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The left/right dichotomy is not a great way to understand American foreign policy in the 20th century. The goal has always been American dominance, less for ideological reasons ("we have the right system"), but for self-preservation, self-enrichment reasons. It's much more than oil. American politicians, and probably most American citizens, implicitly believe, and will often even express explicitly, that America should be the most dominant nation in the world, should have its security interests catered to first of all, and deserves this for a variety of reasons depending on the believer in question (ranging from a vague "our freedom" to an even more vague divine mandate). It has led to rather unfortunate but predictable consequences for other nations. The belief has not diminished in the 21st century, even as its implausibility (China on the rise, the US economy in the hole, US military failings evident, etc.) has led to a lot of deep angst. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What Mr. 98 is talking about is American exceptionalism. --Jayron32 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, for the days, when "extraordinary rendition" just meant that someone sang really well or painted well, or could tell a good joke. Edison (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important not to overestimate U.S. involvement in every regime change in the world. It appears, for example, that the CIA was not actively involved in the 1973 Chilean coup (but did not intervene to stop it, either). There's no evidence, as far as I know, that the U.S. was actively involved in the 2003 Venezuelan coup attempt. The CIA's ability to serve as a global puppet-master has been vastly overstated -- see, for instance, its many failures to get rid of Fidel Castro. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

China vs US (Cold War, second take?)

Talking about China, is there an article on the China vs US contest article, similar to Cold War? I can't help but wonder, with the country's growing ambitions, if it there will be another such event. In some ways, the strategic overview of the two countries are similar to that of the Cold War: 1) Taiwan is held hostage, just like much of Central Europe 2) China started first as David, challenging Goliath (the US) economically, military and politically 3) and, China has nuke-equipped allies in Pakistan and DPRK (The USSR had India). This all make for a very bleak outcome for these two countries, although they have a lot of economic investments in each other, unlike the USSR. What does everyone think? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

India was independent, not an ally of the USSR. And Pakistan and North Korea bring to mind the expression "with friends like these, who needs enemies ?". Pakistan, in particular, seems to like to pretend they are everyone's friend while simultaneously arming terrorists to attack their "allies". The US is allegedly an ally of Pakistan, but sure wasn't going to tell them when they were about to launch an attack on bin Laden (who was hiding right by their military academy), which would have given them a chance to warn him. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See Sino-American relations. As StuRat mentions, the Cold War analogy is not perfect. For one, the USSR controlled the Warsaw Pact countries but allowed them to retain nominal independence; the PRC does not control Taiwan but does not let it declare independence. More importantly, the US-Soviet conflict was a global conflict, with the USSR supporting revolutions in Latin America and Africa in a bid for world domination; the Chinese are seeking to gain influence in Africa but it's not a full-blown ideological conflict like the Cold War was. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bedroom window

I have noticed that if I have my bedroom window open at night, to keep the bedroom cool and get fresh air, that I sleep much better. Is there more oxygen in cold air? Why does one sleep better with a open window at night? Dumb questions from a dumb blonde.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more oxygen in fresh air, cool or warm. HiLo48 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference in oxygen content between indoor versus outdoor air is negligible. You might be able to make an argument based on other trace components (other gases, aerosols, or particulates), but oxygen level is definitely a red herring. Incidentally, you might get better answers to this question on the Science Ref Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you might wish to ask for the concentration of carbon dioxide, i.e. exhalations. But yes, the Science Desk would be better. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Early 20th century childcare expert Truby King was obsessed with babies getting as much fresh air as possible. Sleeping in an unheated nursery with the windows open, or out on the veranda was promoted. This was likely a reaction to and correction of Victorian ideas of a baby wrapped in layers of blankets, in a stuffy and overheated nursery. US school health education books, up until the 1970's energy crisis when fuel and electricity became expensive, and building air infiltration was deliberately reduced, were likely to counsel the student to sleep with the bedroom windows open a crack at both the top and bottom, to promote circulation of fresh air: "No matter how cold or unpleasant the weather, have a window open, and open wide, and try to get a circulation of pure air through the room. (1910), "Fresh air essential to healthful sleep" (1920). These days the books which urge sleeping with windows open, even in winter, seem to be those espousing "natural healing:" [2], [3], with the goal of removing carbon dioxide, or [[4] "vitalizing the nerve and brain centers,"] whatever that means. A typical home is far from the airtight vessel the books assume. That said, if you live in a recent structure with plywood, particle board, carpet backing, adhesives and other sources of formaldehyde and volatile toxins like like those which reportedly harmed people living in US [FEMA trailers provided for hurricane survivors, then keeping a window open might have been a very healthful practice. Indoor air quality is improved by diluting with fresh air the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants, provided that they are not also in abundance outside. An air-to-air heat exchanger can allow fresh air into a tightly sealed modern home while conserving energy. I have found that an open window improves sleep in warm weather , perhaps due to the fresh air, but impairs sleep due to increased loudness of cars driving by, dogs barking, etc. Edison (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Amadeus

Hey there. I just saw this film and I know historically it is not accurate but there is something that really bothers me. Salieri's "plot" was to kill Mozart after he finished his Requiem Mass, then claim it as his own that he wrote for Mozart's funeral. But wouldn't it be obvious that it wasn't his? Every composer has a very distinctive voice just like every writer does, and since both were well-known composers at the time wouldn't the experts be able to tell the difference? (I am not a professional musician but I can easily tell when I'm hearing Mozart as opposed to say, Beethoven or Schubert, etc, though I'm not familiar with Salieri's work) Is this just ignorance/deliberate licence on the original playwright's part or something else? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Artistic licence accounts for it, really. The rumour that Salieri poisoned Mozart did not start to circulate till decades after Mozart's death (see Antonio Salieri#Salieri and Mozart); there was no way this claim could ever be substantiated as his body was buried in a common grave, but even so, it was never the subject of any sort of official investigation, being just scuttlebutt. To its credit, Amadeus never makes the claim that Salieri poisoned Mozart, but it depicts Salieri as a decrepit old man who sometimes thinks he poisoned Mozart. The flashbacks show his memories, but they are the very corrupted memories of an old, sick, tired man.

As for Salieri supposedly appropriating Mozart's Requiem as his own work, it's hard to say whether it could ever have been convincingly presented as the work of a composer other than Mozart. Mozart could not finish it before his death, and it was completed by Franz Xaver Süssmayr and other hands, so it wasn't 100% Mozart to begin with. And given its subject matter, it is somewhat more dark-hued than is usual for Mozart (leaving Don Giovanni aside). I guess if Salieri was going to pick one work of Mozart's to claim as his own (he didn't), the Requiem would be as good as any. Süssmayr was traditionally described as a pupil of Mozart's, but that wasn't the case. He was, however, a pupil of Salieri's, and so it's quite possible that some of Salieri's style could have found its way into the work, however much Süssmayr would have wanted to write as he thought Mozart would have done had he lived. Take that germ of possible truth, develop it, and hey presto! you've got the makings of an excellent play and movie. It's hugely enjoyable on its own terms, as long as you keep in mind it has little if anything to do with your actual historical truth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian election

In elections in Bosnia are people from all communities allowed to vote for the presidential elections for the respective croat/bosniak/serb lists or is it restricted to people for that community (based on ID cards or something (powder keg as that symbol is)). Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not clear on the question, and at any rate unsourced.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Chapter 8 of Bosnian Election law, "A voter recorded in the Central Voters Register to vote in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina may vote for either Bosniak or Croat Member of the Presidency, but not for both ... Voters recorded in the Central Voters Register to vote in the Republika Srpska shall elect the member of the BiH Presidency, who shall be directly elected from the territory of Republika Srpska - one Serb. Candidate who gets the highest number of votes shall be elected". So all communities can vote for whichever member they like, but only in the area in which they live (and some will only be running in some areas, which does de facto restrict who a person can vote for) --Saalstin (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx, should be in that article. SO a Serb can in theory vote for a croat/bosniak and vice versa but not in practice?Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they can in practice, all they need do is live in the 'other' territory - I believe they have that legal right, I have no idea to what extent it happens in reality --Saalstin (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So a Serb in Sarajevo or Mostar can vote Croat/Bosniak and a vice verse? Theres no ID check>? Like Rwanda mentioned the ethnic group on the id cardLihaas (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

On my reading of the quote from that document, it looks as though a Serb registered in Sarajevo MUST vote for a Bosniak or Croat. Or not vote at all of course. And v-v, a Bosniak or a Croat living in Banja Luka MUST vote for a Serb (or abstain). Or am I reading it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)