Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 1

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.

January 1

Bahá'í religious choice

A Bahá'í woman once told me that every Bahá'í reaching the age of 15 is called upon to choose a religion to follow thereafter, and the Bahá'í religion requires the parents to respect the choice.

I don't find this mentioned in the article titled Bahá'í Faith. Where can I find an account of it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find anything about it in Google or perhaps on a Baha'i website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled

Bahá'í "15 years old"

I found various items on other topics related to that religion. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this bit on Yahoo Answers. It was written by an adherent, who was asked why they chose the faith. Their answer, in part, was "My father and some of his family members became Baha'is in the 50's and 60's, so I was essentially born into it (in 1973). However, as with all Baha'is I had to specifically choose to remain a Baha'i once I reached maturity..." which seems to speak to what you're asking about. I'll see if I can dig up some more, but a quick tip: it doesn't seem to be related to 15 particularly, but rather to maturity. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ps - Ah, maybe I was wrong. This site specifically mentions 15 as the age of choice. Sorry I can't seem to find something more authoritative. Perhaps Bugs, with his superior Google and Baha'i website searching skills, can find something for us. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not really authoritative sources, though. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks similar to the Christian practice of Confirmation in the West, which takes place at the age of reason (actually pre-adolescence, I don't know why some people call that age of reason). Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

....No, I don't think it's comparable. A baptized Christian reaching the "age of reason" who decides to become Buddhist, Muslim, polytheist, or whatever, would probably be considered guilty of apostasy. I don't think there's an rigid rule in (most versions of) Christianity requiring the parents to respect such a decision in the same way. The Catholic church explicitly says that the mark of Christian baptism is indelible. (Although they do recognize such a thing as defection from the church.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What actually caused me to think of this again is that I came across the German concept of "Religionsmündigkeit" — the age at which a person in Germany acquires full legal freedom of religion, so that their parents can no longer require them to attend the church of the parents' choice, etc. 14 years, I think. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The questioner is basically correct. The exact position is that, at the age of 15, children of Baha'i parents are required to reaffirm their faith, upon which they may continue to attend Baha'i gatherings. From birth until age 15 they are automatically registered as Baha'i children, and are free to go to all Baha'i functions. After that time, if they don't reaffirm, they will not be able to attend those few gatherings that are for Baha'is only, such as those concerned with administration. The age requirement does not concern all forms of membership or participation, and has nothing to do with voting in Baha'i elections, which begins at age 21. See here for more, and on the same page, the sections from 512 to 522, for a fairly complete overview. You can post any further questions on my talk page. It's been emotional (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "it's". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1810

Does anybody know the date or time of the year King Kaumualii of Kauai ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great in the year 1810. I think it should be known since the start of the kingdom of Hawaii can be dated to May or the Spring of 1795.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from "Shoals of Time" by Gavan Daws: "Early in 1810 his ship carried Kaumualii and his retinue to Honolulu...and after several days of celebration the diplomatic issue was broached and settled." Not very precise...--Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it says: "At last, in 1810,..., Kaumualii consented to go to Honolulu... Kamehameha came out with a fleet of canoes to meet him at Honolulu Harbor. The time was late March or early April." --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

However, here: "Intermediary in the agreement was the American sea captain, Jonathan Windship, who in the summer of 1810 brought King Kaumualii and his court to Oahu where the compact was made and the little kingdom formally ceded...". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female immigrants to the US

From which country did most female immigrants to the US arrive from the 17th to the 20th centuries? My educated guess would be Ireland seeing as many unmarried Irish females came to the US on their own, especially in the 19th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Mitochondrial DNA studies might tell you a little, but I'd think you'd probably do better looking at ships passenger lists etc. I'm not sure about the Irish case, as the women might have been matched by an equal (or even greater) number of unmarried Irish men. Certainly the general trend for most migrations if for the early arrivals to have a greater preponderance of males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually what made me ask is the fact that many celebrities who are considered Italian-American, such as Liza Minelli, John Travolta, and Robert De Niro actually have maternal Irish DNA. I hate to sound weasly but I recall having once read that at some period in the 19th century, Irish female emigrants surpassed males.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think England has to be a contender. From our article: "An estimated 3.5 million English emigrated to the USA after 1776." My knowledge of English history (mostly gleaned from reading around, e.g. The Last of England (painting)) leads me to believe that by this point a large number of the emigrants were women (and children). Ireland may have sent a higher proportion of its population, but England was more populous to start with. In 1855, apparently 2% of England packed its bags and left (350 000 out of 18m). Statistics for Wales are bundled with England, for historic reasons; Scotland is separate, and sent a lot of emigrants (Highland Clearances); again, my instinct would say that a lot of these were women, but I have no hard data to back that up. Obviously, not all of them went to the USA, but a substantial wave did. -- If by 20th century you mean up until 1999, then perhaps Mexico might be in the running? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

voting

The current representative system was developed at a time when people required representation for a number of reasons such as expertise, the need of a congress to permit relatively immediate decisions, etc. Today we have the Internet so is there a system that would allow everyone to represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue? --Inning (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been experimented with on shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which should give a sense of how well direct democracy would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most people don't have the time to inform themselves properly before voting on complex issues. Lets say there's a vote coming up on a trade treaty with Romania, or on funding research into a certain type of cancer, or on immigration quotas. Most people spend most of their time working and feeding themselves and their family. They may have opinions on these issues, but how informed are these opinions? How well do they know the potential consequences of voting "yea" or "nay" on a piece of legislation? Wouldn't it be better if there were someone whose full-time job it was to do this sort of thing? --Jayron32 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

...er ah that why I said, "...represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue..." --Inning (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people believe themselves to be well enough informed rather than actually being well enough informed about these issues. People are likely to make malinformed decisions rather than to give their vote by proxy, as you suggest, to an expert or representative. Someone may believe they know the optimum tarrif levels for quail eggs imported from Romania. But that they don't, but would still have an opinion on the issue, is the problem. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree about the part where people "believe" rather than "actually" being well enough informed about public issue to vote wisely. Just take a look at the Vaccine controversy - the hard science is clear, yet the controversy remains. A default self-representation + deferral voting system will probably result in disaster. Royor (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - and the vaccine crap is just the tip of it. Just think about how many bullshit factoids you've ever been sent by well-meaning friends who think they're well-informed because they know the truth about - hell, forget the big stuff like conspiracy theories and Obama birthers - how many of us "learned" that October 2010 was so strange for having three Fridays, three Saturdays, and three Sundays in it? I got that forwarded to me from a couple of people. If they consider themselves informed about how the calender they use every day works, I shudder to think how well they'll handle something more complicated. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that particular "oddity" had been doing the email rounds (but it doesn't surprise me). My local paper published it breathlessly for the "enlightenment" of the populace - so I wrote and explained to them just how commonplace and ordinary it is. The editor at least had the grace to publish my rejoinder. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is so rare, that it will happen again in July. Googlemeister (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority. schyler (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not practical for large groups to govern. That's why organizations' conventions, or for that matter legislatures themselves, appoint committees to look at issues in-depth and only vote on matters that have already been crafted and vetted in committee. Full legislatures in the U.S. do vote on hundreds of bills each session, but at least they can say that because legislating is their full-time job during the session, they have time and expertise to study each bill before it comes up for a vote. (In reality, that's not the case, and legislators will often vote on bills without reading them.) Most people, on the other hand, are too busy to look at dozens of highly technical pieces of legislation every day. So the logical thing to do is appoint others (legislators) to do that for us, then vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. Now there are some times when the issue is simple enough, or important enough, for people to be able to vote on the matter themselves. This is why some jurisdictions have referendums. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that representatives protect us from that, at best they substitute tyranny of the ruling class (if that ruling class happens to differ from the majority). StuRat (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ruling class" is a fairly vague and problematic construct. Who is the ruling class in the United States? I'm not sure there is one "ruling class" unless you take refuge in either shadowy conspiracies or gross generalizations. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WASPs. Yes, occasionally someone outside the group gets in (like the current President), but a good 90% of the members of both houses of Congress, Supreme Court Judges, and Presidents and VPs have been WASPs, historically, even though this group may even be a minority, by numbers, these days, especially if you exclude women. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... less than 55% of the 111th Congress was Protestant. Less than half of the members of Congress are WASPs. The Cabinet has its typical assortment of minority members. As far as I can tell, everyone on the Supreme Court is either Catholic, Jewish or minority. There may be a ruling class in America, but to identify it with WASPs nowadays doesn't make any sense. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are zero WASPs on the Supreme Court now; the president and the three people following him in the line of succession aren't WASPs either. Maybe the WASPs did this on purpose to distract us from their shenanigans, but more likely is that the idea of WASPs as the "ruling class" is a bit outdated. Although some would say that the Supreme Court is more "diverse" than ever, in one respect the opposite is true: every single justice is a product of Harvard or Yale, as are our last four presidents. To form a modern definition of the US "ruling class", start there. —Kevin Myers 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say "historically". Yes, the WASP ruling class is losing it's clout in the US, but not everywhere else in the world. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I still don't see a "ruling class." I see coalitions that form and reform. I see a lot of groups with more or less power depending how the issue is. I don't see anything that can be generalized into a simple ruling majority of any sort. The US is, and has been for decades, a far more complicated political environment than that. I would file "WASPs are the ruling class" as a gross generalization. (It's a gross-generalization of WASPs as well, which as a "class" contains a lot of different groups with different politics, incomes, cultures.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Democratic Party is becoming more inclusive, but the Republican Party remains rather WASPish. During the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats had the major minorities represented, with a black (Obama) in the lead, a woman (Hillary Clinton) in 2nd place, and also a Hispanic (Bill Richardson) in the pack. The Republicans, on the other hand, had all white men. Yes, Republicans do occasionally pull in a minority member, but it seems largely to be a token gesture, such as choosing Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the OP is describing would basically meaning governing the USA in the same way that Wikipedia is governed. Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Is it your contention that the US gov is better-run than Wikipedia, or worse-run ? StuRat (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be, hmm..., interesting to see the concensus-building process for any kind of major legislation in a government run Wikipedia-style. Actually I don't think any legislation could be changed by that method unless perhaps at the local level.Sjö (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Consensus decision-making Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime cost effectiveness study

I'm wondering if anyone has done any crime cost effectiveness studies. Using some kind of algorithm that quantifies potential gain vs chance of detection vs chance of conviction vs potential penalty and used it to work out the most cost effective criminal activity.

For example a bank robbery has a high initial potential gain in direct cash, however the chances of being caught and convicted are probably fairly high too and the jail time is heavy. Shoplifting might only net a small amount each time but the chances of being caught are lower and the penalty is likely to be a fine.

Anyone know any studies along these lines? Exxolon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I bet that white-collar or corporate crime would have the highest cost-benefit ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe copyright infringement related crimes have an even better ratio, since the cost is quite low.Quest09 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Law and economics is probably a good place to start. --GreatManTheory (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that criminals do this type of analysis, particularly in organized crime. They often try to keep "just under the radar", meaning that they try not to draw police attention, or even worse, the attention of the FBI or equivalent. So, even if this means their take is less, it worth it to avoid the increased risk that high-profile crimes bring, especially if they are in it for the long run. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear War

Resolved

-- It was the USS Liberty incident — Fly by Night (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing about the US president giving an order to use nuclear weapons, but then withdrew the order. I think it was in the 1960's or 1970's. If I recall, an American plane was shot down. It might have been during the Arab-Israeli war, and it could have been the Egyptians that shot down the plane. I'm not sure. Can anyone enlighten me? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A U-2 spy plane, piloted by Francis Gary Powers, was shot down by the Soviet Union, but this didn't cause the same high alert status as the Cuban Missile Crisis. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also misremembering this with the increase of DEFCON 4 to 3 during the Yom Kippur War#Soviet threat of intervention. Flamarande (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it involved a bomber, or something, being dispatched and called back following a downed US aircraft. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

World War III has a nice, short list of a few of the "greatest threats" moments. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the close calls in that article, wasn't there an instance of a US general not responding per policies when someone ran a "test tape" simulating a Russian ICBM attack, and the general doubted the radar indications were real because of other factors, similar to what the Soviet general did? Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was also Ronald Reagan's famous "We begin bombing in five minutes" radio announcement in 1984: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes," which caused "the Soviet Far East Army [to be] placed on alert after word of the statement got out, and [...] the alert was not withdrawn until 30 minutes later." WikiDao ☯ 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be in the WW3 article. It was a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state. So it would have been more genocide than thermonuclear war. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1945 the US was prepared to continue attacking Japan with nuclear weapons, but President Truman called a halt the day after the second attack. (Cite: Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, page 743 in my copy, a few pages from the end of chapter 19.) --Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, January 2, 2011.

I would call for a halt if I was out of ammunition as well. It looks bad to threaten to do something outside your current power if you get called on it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason he did it, nor was that as big a problem as is made out to be. They had another bomb scheduled for the end of August and were making preparations on Tinian to prepare for it. There was actually all sorts of discussion about whether they should drop it whenever it was ready, or group them in twos-or-threes again. Truman said, essentially, "don't drop another without me telling you to, first," as opposed to his general "drop 'em when you've got 'em" order. It wasn't related to their availability. He didn't make the "halt" command publicly, in any case, so there was no (changed) chance of losing face either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing something on a history TV program. There was footage of a silver US jet fighter landing on an aircraft carrier. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians shot down a US plane and the US president sent a bomber or something to attack the Egyptians, but called it back. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The general answer you're getting is that there are no reliable sources indicating that this ever happened. Nuclear release, even if no actual attack happens, is a very big deal (one of the biggest!) and if this were a reliably documented event then it wouldn't be hard to find something about it. It was likely speculation on the part of the TV program. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the original poster has mangled the memory a bit. The US would have had no need to use nuclear weapons against the Egyptians, for one thing. If there are Egyptians involved, I suspect the program was about Israel's nuclear arsenal during the Six-Day War or, more probably, the Yom Kippur War. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've found it! It was the attack of the USS Liberty. We have an article on the attack: USS Liberty incident. The article says that "President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The planes were recalled only just in time..." The Americans thought that the Egyptians had made the attack when, in fact, it was an Israeli fighter and torpedo boats. However, the article goes on to say that a "source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated that he was probably wrong in his original book..." — Fly by Night (talk)

OK. I severely doubt they were nuclear-armed. It's no trivial thing to start a nuclear war, especially when you're trying to avoid starting one (which is why the Liberty was there in the first place). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, me too. In fact it seems they were brought back because they were able to carry nuclear weapons. I just wanted to know what was behind that piece of history program I heard and now I know. It's nice to know that I haven't misunderstood and muddled any memories as multiple posters said I had. Thanks for all your help. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Governor of California

1) Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger stepping down as governor of California? Is it simply that he was outvoted in an election, or some other reason?

2) From this side of the pond, it seems rather odd that actors/celebrities are thought fit to run a state or even the country. I understand that California was in a financial crisis when he took office. Did he actually manage to solve the finance problem?

3) In general did he make a good job of running California, or was it just effective public relations without much substance? Thanks 92.29.119.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) I've often heard that sort of criticism of actors/entertainers going into politics, but who might be better qualified? Is a lawyer, a corporate executive, a farmer, a civil servant, a scientist, a salesman or a sportsman necessarily any better equipped? I say no, in general. By "this side of the pond", I assume you mean the UK. Look at Glenda Jackson. Then look at the House of Lords, which remains entirely unelected despite recent reforms; its members can include actors (Olivier), composers (Britten), sportspeople (Coe) and others from every possible field of endeavour. Virtually none of them (except defeated members of the House of Commons who are kicked upstairs as compensation) have ever studied the ways of government, yet they all have the right to influence the law of the land. How "odd" is that? At least the Schwarzeneggers of the world put themselves up for election and get tested against the only criterion that ever really matters - the ballot box. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger is not "stepping down"; he's termed out. Whether he did a good job depends on whom you asked. In my opinion he did OK; I certainly preferred him to either Gray Davis or Pete Wilson. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See also List of actor-politicians. The Kaczyński twins, former President and former Prime Minister of Poland, are listed there, though they were only actors in their childhood. When Peter Sodann ran for President (not an office that runs the country), the German media did indeed compare him to Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but they didn't take him seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Sluzzen) I think that Schwarzenegger is generally respected as a governor. He retained generally high poll ratings for most of his two terms, though his approval rating took a nasty slump in early 2010 [1]. He certainly was dealt a pretty awful hand, and California is regarded as being fairly ungovernable anyway (California is notoriously politically divided, and the Initiative and Referendum process makes it easy to pass laws that help certain segments of the population in the short term, but are economically unsustainable in the medium to long term. See List of California ballot propositions). California Proposition 13 (1978), for example, severely restricts how much property taxes local governments can collect to raise revenues. Schwarzenegger leaves California still in a pretty dire economic situation. He has passed some environmental legislation, which many in the environmentally conscious California approve of. He has seriously tried to address the economic issues, but in many cases been stymied by political gridlock. I would not characterize his election as a public relations stunt. I think that in general, Schwarzenegger did act in good faith, and with California's best interests in mind. I will be interested to see what he does with the rest of his life. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Heres an interesting, brief end of term assessment of Schwarzenegger's time as governor. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Arnold was not elected in a normal election, but rather simultaneous with the recall of Gray Davis. It was a very abbreviated campaign with 135 candidates. So there was a tremendous advantage to already having a lot of name recognition, and who had more name recognition than Arnold? Also keep in mind that elections in America are usually about individuals more than parties as in a parliamentary system. Many people take pride in voting for the person rather than the party. In that environment, name recognition is a huge advantage. A wishy-washy independent voter may be far more likely to pull the tab for the ex-quarterback whose name they recognize than some lawyer who they've never heard of. And of course, someone like Arnold is going to have a lot of money and a lot of rich friends, which is important for running for office in America. That said, while there are quite a few examples of celebrities-turned-politicians in America, most major elected officials in the U.S. got their start as lawyers or business people, and most celebrities don't run for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the entertainers as politicians question: There are two dentists in the House of Representatives. By your measuring stick, are dentists any more qualified than entertainers? There are some very smart people in entertainment. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick Jagger would be very unsuited to being a member of parliament. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jagger studied at the London School of Economics and had planned to become a politician. Why would he be insuited to political life? He's obviously very intelligent, is qualified in economics and knows how the political system works; he's got loads of charisma in addition to a knighthood. What other qualities is he lacking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Experience in administration, management, social work, and law. Millions of people are graduates, we are two a penny. You don't want much charisma in politicians - they ought ideally to be selfless public servants who are assessed on their record of work done rather than as superficial manipulators or charmers. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar's ratings are in the 20% range. I don't think he is "is generally respected". Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Jagger had studied at the LSE, with a view to becoming a politician, I presume he learned about administration, management, the law and civil service. He has been described as highly intelligent and an astute businessman, so I hardly think it would be too difficult for him to assume the role of an MP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he is. Liberal voters have generally been surprised that he wasn't as bad as they'd feared he might be. And although Bush sabotaged Davis (and California) by refusing to intervene in the electricity con so that they could get a Republican elected, then promptly intervened as soon as Aanold was in office, Schwarzenegger never played Republican party games, and often spoke out against them. I think he's generally seen as having the country's best interests at heart even by those who think most Republicans do not. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And for most of his time in office, as I already pointed out, his approval rating was quite high, at some points very high (at least by California standards). There are a lot of people who don't agree with what he did, but I think that most people think that he really was trying to help California out. California sucks to govern, and I certainly wouldn't want the job. Buddy431 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is about right. California itself was probably going to be a muddle either way, but Arnold showed himself to be more thoughtful and more independent than his detractors had suspected he would be when he was elected. (I was one of said detractors.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mercury News article linked to above says that when he started there was a $10.2 billion deficit, but now there is a $25.4 billion deficit. So on that, he failed. The cancellation of the increase in car tax (losing $4billion a year) seems like expensive crowd-pleasing ("bread and circuses"), so I'm inclined to think that although he was able to get the voters to see things including himself in a positive light due to his acting experience, when assessed by the figures alone he did a poor job. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring the little matter of the worldwide economic collapse in the mean time. Personal income tax revenues tanked. Presumably, so did property tax and sales tax. That wasn't under the Governator's control.

The best thing he did was get himself hated by the horrible union of the prison guards. I want to clarify that I'm not criticizing individual prison guards themselves; it's a terrible job that, unfortunately, someone has to do. But their union has been just appalling, daring to oppose measures that keep people out of prison in a state with an unbelievably high incarceration rate, apparently on the grounds that they would mean less work for their members. To me that's utterly inexcusable. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But politics is more than cherry-picking figures, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Au contrere; politics is all about cherry-picking figures. It's real life / reality which is about more than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He managed to get himself hated by the nurses' union, the teachers' unions and the state employees. He got himself hated by the right, by the left who supported the unions (and voted down his long series of ridiculous propositions). I still see nobody who supports him. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Being hated by the prison guards' union is a really big plus. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)