Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 18

Famous equal lonely?

I wonder the children of famous people, extremely rich people (like Billionaires), powerful people (like the presidents). For the convenient talking, let just called those who are either one of the three types i mentioned above "special people". I assumed that those children will probably go to private school. Are they going to have friends, classmates? Who are their classmates? Are their classmates the same kind as them? Can their classmates be from middle class or even lower class? How are those people going to make real friends? I wonder how marriages work for those kinds of people? My guess is, in term of marriage, most of them will end up be engaged with someone else probably either famous or rich or powerful. How often does cross marriage happen? I mean like "special people" married someone in middle or lower classes. How can they know if their friends or their spouses actually love and care about them? Their friends, spouses may be just pretend their best to get close to them so in the end they can exploit those "special people". They surely don't meet as many people as ordinary people meet. They live in the exclusive style, not many people can meet them in person. What am i trying to get at is can "special people" get true love and true friendship or they are simply just a bunch of lonely people or are they the victims of fake love, fake friendship?65.128.159.201 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

By and large, the classes don't mix, because there isn't a lot of common worldview between them, and there aren't many options to meet socially. A great book to read if you are interested in how social class affects worldview, and why social classes don't mix, is Ruby K. Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty, which explains very well why the social classes don't mix well. It has an education focus, but the principles involved are fairly well applicable to any situation. Now, does that mean that it never happens? No, nothing never happens, but it happens quite rarely. However, your other presumption, that the upper classes aren't likely to find real, lasting relationships, sounds unlikely. They have friends and lovers, they just have friends and lovers like them. --Jayron32 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One case is where somebody grows up "normal" and then becomes "special". Jim Carrey is an example. He got married before he was rich and famous, to someone in his social class, at the time. After he got rich and famous, he divorced here. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another factor to consider is that travel is easier for these "special" people, so, while there are less of them, they can gather from all around the world. The jetsetters may not even have are permanent home. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And another factor: in European societies, the middle class is actually an "open" class, meaning that both the poor and the wealthy can socialize within it, provided they have the money or the interest, respectively. At many cultural events you'll find people from all classes: maybe less poor on the theater and little middle class at posh hotels. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron: My assumption is not for upper class! I think everyone misunderstand me. I'm not talking about simply just upper class! I'm talking about those at the extreme! Like i have mentioned before president of the US, billionaires (like Bill Gate), very famous people (like Michael Jordan, Micheal Jackson). Those are just the examples! Something close to the level of extreme i'm talking about is good. But most of the upper class is not rich enough to be in a group i'm talking about. Most of the famous people is not famous enough to be in a group i'm talking about either. Those "special people" are in a group of very small number! Let me just assume that there are about 10,000 people in a group (called "special people") that i'm talking about. Well I think 10,000 seems about right to me. There aren't that many presidents or very high officers or extremely rich people like Bill Gate around... 10,000 out of 7 billions. "friends and lovers like them?" It is all fake friendship and fake love. What they like about each others is because of the power, money, famous. SO basically those people don't like the special people, they just like "what" the special people have! US is the richest country in the world and it has the highest divorce rate! Divorce rate is a lot lower in poor country! Same thing if you compare poor class to upper class. I'm not saying it is not possible for special people to have true love and friendship but chances are they probably won't. Chances are their friends and spouses like them simply just because of what they have. This is especial true for the extreme group. And if possible answer as many questions as possible. I asked a lot of questions above. My most concerned question still the last one i asked yesterday. "friends and lovers like them?" is not clear enough. Is it fake or not? If you say it is real then how do you know it is real? Humans are by far the best species at faking! In case of lower class, it is easy to tell if someone actually loves someone else or not. True love is someone who loves the special people "unconditionally" not because of their power, money, celebrity. So even if somehow those special people become poor suddenly the there is still someone else love them. Last point but the most important point. It is true love only when you can sacrifice, die for that person.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Let split this into several parts because i felt like you guys have lost track some of my original questions. Let come back back to the children of "special people" (remember those are the "extreme"). How those children make friends? Do they have classmates? If so who are their classmates? Do they have ordinary classmates from upper class and middle class and lower class? Do those children actually get to meet and make friends with ordinary people? Or they are just simply trapped in the world of illusion. Where are they only hang out with their friends? In their houses all the time? I don't understand and can't imagine what the lives of those children look like. It seems terrible and seems like a prison to me.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why rich and affluent lives have made humans become so fake. Why poor people and people who have nothing usually, a lot more likely than special people, will get TRUE LOVE. They have nothing to offer their friends or spouses yet they are the one who get the true not fake one.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of ideas: children of "special people" are not automatically "special". Fame cannot be inherited. Some wealthy people, and family, live pretty common lives (e.g. Buffett). Some children of high profile politicians (e.g. Tony Blair) go to normal schools, mixed with children of other social strata. "Special" people also have a "normal" "human" side. You could pretend you like Bill Gates for his fortune, or you could appreciate his philanthropic activities. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fame can be inherited but not always. Let say if you are a child of the president of the US, that will automatically make you famous. Are you sure Buffett lives a common live? How common is common? Can ordinary people meet him? Does he eat at the regular restaurants that anyone can go in? "Special" people also have a "normal" "human" side. How much normal human side do special people have? It is true that many people admire Bill Gate for his kindness but about his friends, spouse? They acted the way they are maybe just because of his fortune. How do we know for sure his friends care about him and his wife actually loves him?65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Buffett lives a common life (excepting the private plane), defining common in a rather broad sense. He's kind of upper middle class. And most children of famous people are not famous themselves, and won't be. Actually, Bill Gates cannot not know whether some people like him or just pretend to like him right away. No one can. But his BS detector will ring at some moment, in the same way that the BS detector of anyone. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question! Can ordinary people meet him? Does he eat at the regular restaurants that anyone can go in? If not then he indeed does not live a common life. Before i start on continue to discuss, what is the BS detector? I totally disagree with this statement "No one can." Like i said before the poor and people who have nothing can easily tell if someone actually loves them or not. Let put it this way. How can you tell if someone loves you or not? By their actions right? For special people case, what probably happen is most people would pretend to act nice to get close to them (the special people) and exploit them when they have chances. What they, anyone, love is not the special people, they love "what the special people have". This can't happen for the poor. Why would someone pretend to love the poor? Did you get my point at all? The poor indeed will a lot more likely to find true love. Plus they won't have to encounter well-fake people like the rich has to. Don't forget the divorce rate I mentioned above, it is a good measure to see if there is true love. 65.128.159.201 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "BS" detector referred to I would guess is the Bullshit detector. But I have to object to some of what you're saying. Even if I am eating in Howard Johnson's—do I want someone walking up to my table and introducing themselves? They'd better have some good "chemistry" before they reach out to shake my hand. Supposing one of these "special" people had and interest in some field of study and developed their expertise to a high degree in that field. Wouldn't they then have created their own special realm in which their competency broke down all walls separating them from the "common" people and built up in their place "walls" that only related to proficiency in that field? The problem is not as intractable as you are presenting it. It may be no more of a "problem" than anyone faces in life. Finding a place for oneself in life can possibly involve finding an interest and pursuing it. This is an area of education—broadly defined. In that area the distinctions that were once seen as problematic become reduced in importance and are to some degree replaced by distinctions based on competency and proficiency in a certain field of endeavor. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I interpret the nub of the question to be about growing up as the child of extremely wealthy or famous (or both) parents. Such children do indeed face challenges unique to their position in society, and one of them is an increased difficulty in knowing if others like them for themselves, or for what they offer access to. The children of these ten thousand are, overwhelmingly, not educated in state schools, where the vast majority of their compatriots go. Some will be sent to fee-paying independent schools, some will be sent away from home (perhaps to another country) to boarding schools, and some will be educated at home by a governess or tutor. The latter two provide more physical security, but one gives a child a grounded circle of peers, whereas the other may be so peripatetic that no firm friendships with other children are possible. This last situation may well lead to the sort of isolation you mention. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even poor people have to trust that another person likes them for who they are rather than for the advantages that access to them can bestow on a potential friend or similarly mutually beneficial relationship, at least ostensibly so. I don't think the class distinction identified is as stark as it is characterized to be. We all—rich and poor—have intuition about the motives of others with whom we enter into relationships. All people of normal intelligence are armed with the same abilities to probe others for the compatibility that we may be seeking in another person. There are no guarantees that under the best of circumstances one's choices will be right. The premise of "special" people is problematic because it implies another category of people who are "not special". I think these distinctions are not real—to a great extent—and are based on cliches. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deism and the Devil

Deists believe that there is a god. But what about a devil? Do deists believe that there is a devil?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a hard question to answer, because deism is not a well-formed, coherant religion in the way that christianity or buddhism is. Deism is a broad religious philosophy which describes a lot of different belief systems. By its nature, deism is not an "organized" group, but instead describes an outlook on the world held by many diverse people, some of who may indeed believe in a Deist-devil with similar properties as the Deist perspective on God; while others may not. The only answer is "Some deists might, and others might not". --Jayron32 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a strict logical incompatibility between Deism and belief in a devil, but the two concepts do not seem to be very congenial -- since the basic tenet of Deism is that God created the universe to unfold within a system of natural laws, but does not directly intervene in the universe after its creation. This would seem to leave little place for significant devils (if they play no role in the creation of the universe, and can't intervene in it after it's been created). If you have the combination of a remote Deist-style high god who does not directly intervene in the universe, together with a malevolent lower god who does intervene, then you get ancient Gnostic type "demiurge" theology... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Bill Clinton walks in on Obama

What's the story behind this [1] photo? It's not photoshopped, is it? Googling "bill clinton walks in on obama" turn up nothing related. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was taken Dec. 10, 2010 at the White House by Drew Angerer of the New York Times. Here's the White House video of the event. It looks like the point the photo was taken is at about 0:03 of the video. To me it looks like the President's hand-to-face gesture is a sort of mock casualness acted out for comedic value, but you be the judge.--Cam (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Best caption I've seen for this one: "Did someone say Columbian prostitutes?" 71.212.237.94 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

First aid kit color/graphic and the Geneva Conventions

The Wikipedia article on first aid kit has a picture of a first aid kit with a non-standard logo. The accompanying caption says

A small first aid kit, but in a non-recognised colour and bearing an equal white cross on a red background, illegal under the Geneva conventions

The white-on-red equal cross is, incidentally, the Swiss flag, not the Red Cross symbol. Is it really against the Geneva Conventions? If so, why? The words "non-recognized colour" in the caption suggests some kind of legal requirements for particular color and/or graphic for a first aid kit. The existence of such requirements seems to depend on the jurisdiction and setting. Outside of workplaces and industrial environments, are there regulations requiring first aid kits to have a particular look? --173.49.12.20 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "illegal" seems a bit strong, as nobody is going to jail. I'd say "not in accordance with the Geneva conventions". (They want uniformity, so everyone will recognize aid workers, ambulances, aid supplies, etc., and hopefully not target them during a war.) StuRat (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it really does seem to be illegal to misuse the Red Cross symbol. I found this on an American Red Cross website: "Each government that is a party to the treaties enacts laws to protect the Red Cross name and emblem within its boundaries. The rules in this country were set by the U.S. Congress when it first granted the American Red Cross its charter on June 6, 1900, and they are now set forth in Sections 706 and 917 of the U.S. Criminal Code... which reads as follows: "Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’ or any combination of these words- 'Shall be fined'" " Whether it's illegal to misuse the Swiss flag is a seperate issue. Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes it illegal in American law, which most people are not subject to. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it says: "Each government that is a party to the treaties enacts laws to protect the Red Cross name and emblem within its boundaries." In the UK, it's the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about that claim about the white cross, and would delete it as unsourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless it had been tested in court (a reversal of colour could be construed as "imitation thereof"), in which case, you would need a reliable reference. In the UK, if an employer fails to mark their first aid kit with the standard ISO symbol of a white cross on a green ground, they are probably in breach of the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. But let's not get into legal advice, eh? Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

§ 125 OWiG. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The misuse of a white cross on a red background IS ILLEGAL in the UK - see the Geneva Conventions Act 1957

"Section 6: (2)Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Secretary of State, to use for any purpose whatsoever— .

(a)any design consisting of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a red ground, being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation, or any other design so nearly resembling that design as to be capable of being mistaken for that heraldic emblem..."

As the link above says, all signatories were required to adopt protective legislation, so it's probably not just a British thing. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know and as far as I can make out from the American Red Cross site the Geneva conventions only prohibits using the red cross on a white background, not the other way around. The UK chooses to go further than that but that doesn't make the white cross on a red background illegal in other countries.Sjö (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The site linked by 84.61 above says: "(2)The order acts adversely also, who uses unauthorized the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation." (apologies for the machine translation).

See also Canada: Geneva Conventions Act, RSC 1985"Article 53... By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trade-marks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times." Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Australia: Geneva Conventions Act 1957 "Part IV—Abuse of the Red Cross and other emblems, signs, signals, identity cards, insignia and uniforms.... Subject to this section, a person shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister or of a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consents under this section, use for any purpose whatsoever any of the following: ... (d) the emblem of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a red ground, being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation.." Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And finally - Section 708 US Criminal Code - Swiss Confederation coat of arms "Whoever, whether a corporation, partnership, unincorporated company, association, or person within the United States, willfully uses as a trade mark, commercial label, or portion thereof, or as an advertisement or insignia for any business or organization or for any trade or commercial purpose, the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation, consisting of an upright white cross with equal arms and lines on a red ground, or any simulation thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." The first-aid kit in the photo seems to be commercially produced, so in America, the company's boss could be facing six months in clink. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The First Geneva Convention, article 53, prohibits the use of emblems that look like the Swiss flag. (Article 44 mentions who can use the Red Cross emblem, by the way.)Sjö (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

use of the word BHATTINI to address a goddess or a princess in the ancient himalayan kingdoms such as kashmir,Bhutan,Nepal etc.this is with reference to the Pattini festival of Kerala

I have read on wikipedia the details about the Pattini festival celebrated in Kerala long time ago.I have also read about various theories about the origin of this festival.In this context I remember to have read about a noble lady called BHATTINI in a Hindi novel written by Sri Hazariprasad Dwivedi.Inthis novel a Kashmiri princess was addressed as Bhattini.Since it is reported in wikipedia that a great Chera king of Kerala brought some idols of gods and goddesses from the Himalayas I want to know whether there is some connection betweenBhattini and Pattini. BK.Satyanarayana --Bksatyanarayana (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)K--Bksatyanarayana (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Satyanarayana

Norrey

This page about the Taplow burial for children makes the claim, surprising to me, that:

Tappa may have ruled a lost kingdom called 'Norrey' (meaning North Kingdom). This would have covered Buckinghamshire and possibly Middlesex. It had a sister-kingdom across the River Thames called 'Surrey' (meaning South Kingdom).

Was there ever really a counterpart to Surrey called Norrey? Marnanel (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the direct answer to your question, but it may be relevant that there was once a Norroy north of the Trent, which the name of the surviving heraldic office of Norroy and Ulster King of Arms references. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.234 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Early British Kingdoms site to which the OP linked (and its linked site www.britannia.com) is generally regarded as highly unreliable, and based on a great deal of unsourced (or, at least, unreliably sourced) wishful thinking. So is this self-published book. However, that is not to say that such a place did not exist, and it is mentioned in passing in some antiquarian sources such as this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the name Surrey (Sūþrige) is usually thought to have referred to a district of a possible Middle Saxon kingdom (whose name would have been the origin of the name Middlesex), perhaps centered in or near London, rather than to an independent kingdom. If that's true, then it seems very plausible that the district north of the Thames could have been Norþrige, which would have become Norrey in modern English. However, this would have been a district rather than an independent kingdom with a king and a capital. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminds of this one: Everyone knows that Essex was the East Saxons, while Wessex was the West Saxons and Sussex was the South Saxons. Apparently, there were North Saxons, but they died out after one generation... hint: its a joke, and not a good one. --Jayron32 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Sax. because they were actually British? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Google searches bring up plenty of references for the "Norrey King of Arms", but this seems to be unrelated and either a variant or mis-spelling of the Norroy King of Arms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TV Licence after the Digital Switchover ?

My question is: after the digital switchover has completed for the whole of Britain & for whatever reason I chose not to upgrade to digital (no digi' TV, set-top box, etc) but I still had my old TV & VCR (lets say for just watching DVDs, videos, etc), will I still need to get/have a TV licence ?
The reason that I am asking is because I know & have heard that the TV licence does not cover the TV but the receiver inside the TV, VCR, etc so would this still apply afterwards ?
80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't need a licence then. Full information available here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing on that page, or indeed that entire website, that covers analogue tvs as far as I can see. The specific issue doesn't seem to be covered anywhere as they assume everyone has a digital tv. The if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast line seems to imply analogue tvs don't need a license, since they will be as able to receive live tv as potted plant. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no licence needed if you are unable to receive live TV signals (by any means). The same applies at present to analogue signals. If you have the equipment to receive live TV (including a computer to watch streamed TV over broadband as it is being broadcast), then you might need to prove that you never use it (for that purpose). There's a concession in the regulations in that don't need a licence to watch recorded programmes or those streamed from the broadcasting company after they have been broadcast. There's no difference in the regulations between analogue and digital signals. Dbfirs 11:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would someone go about proving they don't watch live tv over internet? 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. This "anomaly" in the regulations has always puzzled me. I suppose the internet provider could verify the claim. I know of public computers that have a warning that it is illegal to use them to watch live TV. Dbfirs 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You can still use an analogue television to watch digital broadcasts, either through a desk top box or a VCR so it may be hard to prove that you dont watch live TV to a licence inspector. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a VCR with a digital decoder, but they may exist -- are VCRs still manufactured? If you own a "desk top box" (digital signal decoder) or a modern digital recorder then you need a licence. I think the licensing authorities regard recording live TV to be the equivalent of watching live TV. Dbfirs 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was refering to a DVD player/recorder with a hard drive which have a digital receiver and can playback on an analogue TV. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, there will be an eight-month gap between the closure of analogue satellite television and the introduction of the Rundfunkbeitrag. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What will Germans watch during that eight-month gap? Dbfirs 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Soccer. Those 8 months will just fly by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the story I keep getting told by friends & family when we talk about this ?
The story being about an eldery couple that were taken to court because they the have a black & white TV (with a B&W TV licence) & the TV Licencing people (I think) stated that even though the TV is B&W the reciever inside it is picking up color TV signals. My friends & family then go on to say that a similar thing will happen if I do what I suggested in this question, that is even though can't pick up digi signals on my old analogue TV I can pick up TV signals (even though there might not be any analogue signals in Britain after the switchover) Would that happen ?
80.254.146.140 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it's veering into the area of legal advice. Regardless, it's such an odd situation, I doubt anyone here could give you a definitive answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The site Shantavira linked to does say "Please let us know if you believe that a TV Licence is not needed", with a link explaining how to do this. I'm sure they will be able to advise you if you get in touch. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that your story is apocryphal. Black and white licences are sufficient for B & W TVs. I know someone who has one. Perhaps the elderly couple had a colour TV but turned down the colour and watched in B & W and thought that this would save them some money, but in that case, a colour licence was needed. If you genuinely never watch live TV and have no equipment for receiving a currently transmitted signal, then you do not need a licence. Dbfirs 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can remember of the story, it was stated that the TV was a B&W TV 80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly certain you wouldn't have to prove you don't receive tv signals; they would have to prove you do. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The story is clearly apocryphal, as why would B&W TV licences be on sale, if not for B&W TVs? In my experience, the TV licence people will not really believe you or leave you alone unless you can prove that you don't have the means to watch TV, as the assumption is that everyone watches TV. I knew someone without a TV licence who resorted to squirting glue in the aerial socket of their TV, which they used to watch videos only, because it was the only way to convince the licence authorities that they really didn't watch TV. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Sheep and the Goats criteria in the Book of Revelation?

I am trying to determine whether Jesus' description of the specific judgement criteria described in the Sheep and the Goats are reflected at all in the Book of Revelation. Given that the latter purports to be a more thorough description of the "end times" than Jesus took the opportunity to relay in the gospels, is there any recapitulation of the specific judgement criteria specified in the Sheep and the Goats in Revelation? If so, at what chapter(s) and verse(s)? If not, where would it most likely fit chronologically in the Revelation story (Rev. 20:11-12?) and, why might the details not have been included? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The parable of the Sheep and the Goats appears in Matthew, while Revelation was written by John. Two different authors, so it doesn't seem likely that the former was intended in any way to fit into the chronology of the latter. --Jayron32 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Last Judgement#Christian sources says that they overlap. The particular passages I am most interested in are Matthew 25, verses 40 and 45, "....as you did (not do) for the least ... you did (not do) for Me," which that article suggests corresponds to Revelation 20:11-15 ("each person was judged according to what they had done.") That seems congruent to me now.

Why do you suppose that John didn't include Jesus' words indicating that judging "what they had done" will involve actions towards "the least" of their brethren, or omissions of such acts? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the Book of Revelation purport to be a more thorough description of the 'end times'? It is certainly purported by many to be so, but I don't recall the book itself making any such claim. As our article on the book reflects, people have projected onto and read into Revelation all sorts of situations, only some of which are the 'end times'. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Its article says that it contains apocalyptic prophesy, and the text itself says so from Chapter 4 through Chapter 22. Revelation 22:12 also very briefly summarizes the theme of The Sheep and The Goats, which I didn't notice until just now, along with the fact that verses 5 through the end of Chapter 22 are very redundant. What are the alternative interpretations? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article is not the book, and apocalyptic prophecy does not necessarily mean endtimes prophecy. Apocalyptic literature isn't necessarily concerned with the end times (although it will often include this, among other things), just that righteous suffering will end and be rewarded, and the evil-doers punished. Our article summarises some of the alternative interpretations, and has links to articles with more detail. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On rereading your post: the Book of Revelation purports to be the vision of St John, in which an angel speaks to him giving him messages from Jesus, and also shows him things. It purports to contain prophecy: but not all prophecy is telling of what is to come. Consider Jonah warning people, such that the great punishment from God never came. Consider long chunks of Isaiah which purport to be God berating the Israelites through Isaiah. These are prophecy, as they are God speaking through a prophet, but they are not predictions. Some sections of Revelation specifically say that they tell "what is to come", which is indeed the future. But it doesn't follow that these are the end times. For example, chaoter 12 is typically taken to be about Jesus's first coming, when he was born of the virgin Mary and the devil was defeated. It's certainly apocalyptic, it's certainly prophecy, but is it the end times? Of course, given the nature of apocalyptic literature, you can easily read all sorts of things into it.

My point is that very little of the Book of Revelation actually claims to be describing the very end of things, although it is possible to read much of it as being so. Combine this with the apocalyptic style, in whch everything is symbolism, and it cannot be said to purport to be a detailed account of the end times. Unless you're taking the view that the last 2000 years have been the end times for the purposes of Revelation, and the early Christians did think they were in the end times. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's good, but what I am trying to get at is this: Jesus said the Last Judgement would be by whether or not we performed very specific actions, those being towards "the least amongst" us, and by our omissions of such actions. On what I believe is the very reasonable Christian assumption that the word of Jesus is more authoritative than that of angels or men, who are both known to be subject to and frequently succumbed to temptation, doesn't it stand to reason that this particular omission, potentially affecting the ultimate fate of everyone is a very serious mistake? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the Sheep and the Goats was not the only time Jesus spoke about Heaven and Hell, and entrance into them. He gave many other conditions, not just how we treat the least of our brothers. As I said, the Book of Revelation does not purport to be a more detailed account of the final judgement: it purports to be a letter to some churches, and an apocalyptic vision. A large part of the apocalyptic vision is involved in martyrs going to Heaven and seeking justice/vengance, while the wicked are judged and punished. Another large part of the book is a letter to 7 churches, berating those who are not charitable enough and praising those who are.

It is a letter written to an audience that already had heard the Gospel, and had received Apostolic letters before. This is an audience that already knew the contents of a basic synoptic Gospel, just as the Gospel of John is written for an audience that was already familiar with the synoptics. Why would it need to include everything that's in the Gospel? It's only a potential problem if you're expecting it to be a complete account of the end times. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting into heaven is one thing, and staying there past the Last Judgement is another, right? It just seems to me that the criterion for the latter is infinitely more important. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am terribly curious as to whether you know of any religious group that actually considers getting into Heaven but being kicked out at the Last Judgement even possible, let alone a real cause of concern. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of a Last Judgement if it just reiterates earlier decisions? Should we trust what is written in scripture, or "religious groups"? 71.212.237.20 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because not everyone will have died by that point, and the final judgement involves the resurrection of the body for those who are already dead. If you're trusting Scripture, don't you have to trust whoever preserved, copied, translated, chose Scripture? That would be religious groups. If you're going to trust what is written in Scripture, does that include 2 Peter 1:20, and 2 Thessalonian 2:15? Nonetheless, I remain interested to know if any group agrees with you. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So lets see, everyone still alive, plus everyone dead. That's everyone. Apparently those groups who preserved Jesus's words thought they were important enough to do so. I'm sorry if your peer group thinks it's fine to disregard them. 71.212.237.20 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That was extremely rude, 71. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/revelation/1-1.htm and http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-8.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the verses. Please elaborate. Are you saying this explains why John omitted the specific judgement criteria relayed to Matthew? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Revelation 1:1 says that the Revelation (also called the Apocalypse) was transmitted from God to Jesus Christ, and then to an angel, and then to John. That verse says that the Revelation was conveyed by signs (Greek ἐσήμανεν) (http://biblelexicon.org/revelation/1-1.htm), that is, by using figures of speech. You might wish to see how the same Greek lemma is used in other verses (http://concordances.org/greek/4591.htm).

Revelation 13:8 makes a distinction between humans who are counted as faithful ("written … in the book of life …") and humans who worship the beast (http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-1.htm), whose power and authority are given to him by the dragon (http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-2.htm). The dragon signifies Satan (http://mlbible.com/revelation/12-9.htm), who spoke through a serpent (http://mlbible.com/genesis/3-1.htm). (Compare http://mlbible.com/numbers/22-28.htm.)

The beast empowered by Satan represents a political entity, like the beasts prophesied by Daniel (http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-20.htm; http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-21.htm; http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-22.htm). (Compare http://mlbible.com/proverbs/28-15.htm.) However, Jesus Christ taught his followers to worship only God (http://mlbible.com/matthew/22-21.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with why John or the angel decided to omit the criterion for judgement which Jesus specified as involving actions toward "the least amongst you," and omissions of such actions? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with anything, and furthermore, as always, it seems obligatory to point out that Wavelength is a Jehovah's Witness. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not disclosed my religious status on Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have spent several years swimming in the duck pond in the manner of a duck, quacking, and showing us your beautiful duck-like feathers, then you don't need to have told us that you are a duck to have disclosed your ducky nature. It is always possible that you are, in fact, a moorhen with a consuming interest in duck culture, but you would probably have noted this in some way when showing us your duck feathers.

Don't worry about it. I respect that, when you have linked to the Watchtower website, you have labelled those links as being the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. I could wish that you'd label links to the New World Translation as being a Jehovah's Witness translation, and that you would explain your angle when you bombard people with Bible quotes, but there's usually someone to add that caveat for you, just as there is when anyone else starts getting on their hobby horse :) 86.140.54.3 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Vice president

I wonder since when the running mate of the winner in presidential election automatically became vice president? And what is the 12th amendment really saying? I don't really get it. Can someone explain to me in words that someone with no politic knowledge will understand. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are speaking about the President of the United States, for the first few elections, all candidates appeared on one list, and the person who received the most votes in the electoral college was declared the President, while the person who received the second most votes was declared the Vice President. This created major problems for these early elections. In the 1796 election the two offices went to bitter rivals from opposite ends ot the political spectrum: Federalist John Adams won the Presidency, while Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson got second place and the vice presidency. For the 1800 election, the electors and parties tried to prevent that from happening, but they did it too well, and ended up with both Democratic-Republican candidates with the exact same number of electoral college votes. This threw the contested election to the House of Representatives, created a messy political quagmire. To rectify this, the 12th Amendment was passed. This assured that there were two votes each Elector made: one for President and one for Vice President, and they clearly indicated who was running for which office. This reduced a lot of the problems with the prior system. In other words, the twelfth amendment seperated the elections for President and Vice President, so that each elector selects one person for President and another person for Vice President. Does that work?--Jayron32 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Could a presidential candidate run with different vice presidential candidates in different states? Has that ever happened? --Soman (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The could, I suppose, but it has never happened. The whole "who must be from different states thing" is a bit of an anachronism, when people were concerned about certain states monopolizing the political process, when the country had less than half the number of states it does now. With 50 states, and a much different political system in place, it is the sort of thing which would never appear had the law been written today, but which still exists because there has been no real reason to go through the trouble to revert it. --Jayron32 20:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has happened in the other direction (same veep, different prez). Róger Calero ran on the Socialist Workers' Party ticket with Arrin Hawkins as the VP candidate. But Calero was not a natural-born citizen and therefore not actually eligible to be elected, which in some states kept him off the ballot entirely. In those states James Harris headed up the ticket, presumably still with Hawkins as VP. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

... ah, maybe not — Hawkins' article says she was ineligible too (too young), and Margaret Trowe stood in for her in some states. So I don't know. Depending on the details of the laws, it could be that there were as many as four different combinations of the four candidates on different states' ballots. --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The closest example would be 1896, when the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan for President, but the Populist Party, which was big enough to matter, didn't like his VP candidate, Arthur Sewall (and for other reasons), and so nominated Bryan along with Thomas Watson. They came to all sorts of weird arrangements so that the Bryan vote wouldn't be split. Watson wasn't even on the ballot in his home state of Georgia, which enraged him. If Bryan had been elected, there is no guarantee Sewall would have been elected VP, it could have been thrown into the Senate, it would have been Sewall vs. the Republican, Garret Hobart. The Populists would have held the balance of power, but there's no guarantee party lines would have held, Gold Democrats might have voted for Hobart and Silver Republicans for Sewall ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And, as a practical matter, I doubt if a VP is likely to be chosen from the same state, anyway. The VP is often chosen from a swing state, in the hopes that they can deliver this state in the general election. Presumably, the Presidential candidate already has his own state in the bag (if they can't win their own state, winning the election is rather doubtful). StuRat (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were both Texans. Cheney claimed Wyoming residency for 12th Amendment purposes but it was sort of iffy. No one seems to have bothered to challenge it, though, or at least I haven't heard of it.

It did raise an interesting scenario if the Wyoming dodge had been shot down, and Bush had needed all the Texas electors to win. That could have thrown the VP election into the Senate, and in an unlikely but maybe not impossible outcome, have resulted in Bush as president and Lieberman as veep. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the Dick Cheney article, he was primarily a Wyomingite, and had moved to Texas when he worked for Halliburton. He moved back to Wyoming after Dubya asked him to be his VP running mate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think previous residency is particularly relevant. Most states define your residency as where you plan to live "permanently", which of course is not particularly well-defined, but Cheney does not appear to have made Wyoming his genuine primary residence at any point after moving to Texas. (His intent, of course, we can't really know.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone called it a "dodge" and that's unfair. The Constitution doesn't define what qualifies as residency of a state. That's left up to the Congress or the states or whoever. If the laws say he was a proper resident of Wyoming when he was elected, then he was; end of story. If someone thinks it was a "dodge", they should petition to get the laws changed. But to what? How long should you have to live someplace before you're considered a resident? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing — the laws are less than clear on this. A legal challenge would presumably have been a longshot (otherwise someone would have done it) but I don't see how it could be ruled out a priori. I do think it was a dodge. I don't have any particular interest in closing that loophole, though, because I'm not particularly interested in expanding ways that states can claim you're a resident when you say you're not (thereby subjecting you to their jurisdiction).

The word "dodge" is not particularly a criticism here. I don't really care that much that they found a way around that provision. But I think it's clear that it was a way around it, not a genuine intention to move back to Wyoming. --Trovatore (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like implying that someone pulled a "fast one". If you want an even more blatant "dodge", there was Bobby Kennedy moving to New York and winning for Senator. That led satirist Tom Lehrer to say in 1965 that his state of Massachusetts "is the only state with three Senators." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This question hasn't been answered yet: "when the running mate of the winner in presidential election automatically became vice president?" Like in modern days now. Whoever is the running mate of a presidential candidate will become VP if that candidate became president.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been answered. Jayron mentioned the Twelfth Amendment, which came into effect in 1804. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, it isn't true. The constitution doesn't say anything about "running mates", and as far as I know there is no such legal concept at the federal level, though there may be for the purpose of state ballots (but this would vary state-by-state). --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused on the answers now. The 12th amendment says the elections for President and VP are separately. It doesn't say the running mate will become VP automatically if the candidate became the president. I'm not sure if there is even a VP election. There is only presidential election. Whoever was the running mate of the winner of the presidential election, will become VP.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing — your last sentence is simply wrong as a statement of the law, though it does seem to be a solid prediction in practice. --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As the 12th Amendment says, the electors choose both. And since the electors for the President are going to be of the same party as the Vice President, they would be extremely unlikely to try to force a different VP on the guy they've just voted for, for President. So it's not legally "automatic" at all, but as a practical matter it is - and has been since the 1804 election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wehwalt's remarks above on the 1896 election. --Trovatore (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Distinct presidential/vice presidential tickets came with the 1828 election, basically.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Pendragon (like many) is being confused from the difference between the popular election and the electoral college. The only legally mandated body which elects the President and Vice President is the Electoral College. That's it. They select the president and vice president, and when they do, they pick one person to be President and a different person to be Vice President. "But Jayron32," you say, "When I go to vote, I don't get to select them seperately. I get a ballot with both names listed together, and I only get to select the pairing." Astute observation, but here's the dilly: That vote you make isn't an actual vote. Think of it more like an 'opinion poll'. They states aren't even required by the Constitution to ask you who you want to be President. They just have to send a number of electors to Washington every four years to select a president. The states are allowed to come up with any procedure they want to select those electors. If a state wanted to, it could just pass a law that says the Governor by decree gets to decide how that state's electors vote. Nothing stops them from doing so. For some time, all 50 states have used the general election to guage the "popular vote" and based on that, pledge its electors to vote for whatever candidate won the popular vote in that state. Since, however, there is no nationally defined procedure, there is no requirement that the ballot you get matches what the electors do. So, wheras the electoral college simply select a President and a Vice President from seperate lists, you get handed a ballot which all-but requires you to vote for each parties "Pair" of candidates together. You vote for a President and his/her running mate together. That essentially assures that the electoral college will do so as well, however that isn't a product of the 12th amendment. The electoral college votes how it always has voted. What has changed is the way that the states organize the ballot to encourage a certain type of voting by you (i.e. you can't "split the ticket" and vote for a Republican President and Democrat VP). Why can they constrain your vote this way? Because it isn't a legally binding vote. They don't even have to ask your opinion, at least, by the Constitution. --Jayron32 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't so automatic in 1836. See Faithless elector and United States presidential election, 1836#Results. There are separate elections for president and vice president in the electoral college. In 1836 the running mate didn't get enough votes but was later elected by the Senate. The constitution has no concept of running mate and in 1840 the sitting President ran unsuccessfully for reelection without a designated running mate. See Richard Mentor Johnson#Election of 1840. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

All true, except the OP isn't voting in 1836. The OP wants to know why, under the twelfth amendement, the electors are required to vote for the Pres. and VP on different ballots, but when the OP goes to the voting booth, a President and his running mate are listed as a single option together. That's because you are not an elector. Your vote isn't mandated by the constitution, so there needs be no expectation that your vote is done by any procedure at all, least of which the procedure required by the constitution that applies to a group of 538 people who actually elect the Pres. and VP. In fact, the parties have vested interest in not letting you vote for the President and VP seperately for exactly the historical reasons you note. They want to prevent you from doing so, lest you screw up and select a President and a VP from different parties, which may, in a close election, result in that being the final result. Since the parties don't want that to happen, they don't let you do that. They are allowed to set those constraints on your voting, even in light of all of the procedures noted in the Constitution and its amendments, because you are not an elector and your vote isn't constitutionally mandated. Only those 538 are. --Jayron32 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Communist manifesto

What did Karl Marx mean by "combination of education with industrial production"? To what extent as this been implemented in the united states? \ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Does anyone have any ideas on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Jayron32 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

this isnt a homework question, it is a reserch question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx just means that education is designed to prepare people for their jobs: schools which make good workers (as opposed to good thinkers). To answer the second question, start with Horace Mann and work forwards. --Jayron32 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd call that type of training vocational education, and it's quite widespread in the US. Education for education's sake (like music, art, and the humanities for most), to become a better citizen (government classes), and to improve your health (physical education) are often cut first during a budget crunch. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but Stu, it is deeper than that. This isn't about merely vocational schools. The idea is that the public education system in America isn't necessarily designed and organized to make a bunch of independent thinking and well-rounded students who can think critically about the world. One of the major objections to it, especially historically, is that its designed to train people to be good, obedient workers. Sit in your chair. Do what your told. Don't question the authority. Do repetitive work over and over. You know, the exact same kind of thing you'll be expected to do in the workforce. It's not that general education is training you for a specific job, it is indoctrinating you to be a good worker in whatever job you do. That, at least, is the criticism of the type that the OP is looking for. --Jayron32 02:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a criticism I've heard about China. The US does seem to teach critical thinking skills far better. But, those are also important for working, at least for good jobs. Doing things with mindless repetition only works for bad jobs. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with StuRat here, inculcating "labour discipline" means much more than forcing mindless compliance. Mindful compliance is far more productive. Again, I'd point to Adler (below), where he explores the different readings of teleology of the "deskilling" (Harry Braverman) debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx has a double meaning here, just let me refer to the paper I'm reading on the topic: Paul S. Adler "Marx, Machines, and Skill" Technology and Culture 31:4 1990:780-812, jstor. Adler notes that Marx views history as a progress within a social form, leading to a crisis, and then a revolutionary progress. Ie: the system of industrial production under capitalism is more humanising than previous systems of production (feudal agriculture); but, that this system of production also produces anti-human contradictions, and that these contradictions can only be resolved through a social revolution (ie: a vast change in underlying conditions and relations; not necessarily armed dudes storming the Winter Palace). In the case of skill, eduction and production, Marx is talking about a two fold process: firstly, the factory acts are replacing apprentice systems (7+ years), with limited apprenticeships (3+ years). A dehumanising process is occurring as old systems of education in production are broken down. But at the same time as decomposition of feudal relationships is occurring, a recomposition of these relationships occurs as a new system of apprenticeship is being created. Similarly, the replacement of factory child labour with a combination of factory child labour and forced elementary school education is a recomposition of education into a new capitalist form that is (arguably) more human than the feudal elements of the manufactory (manual labour, not machine labour, factory). But is this enough for Marx? No. Marx wants an end to labour all together, including child labour, and its replacement with a combination of pleasure and leisure. So when Marx is claiming that mixed vocational/work education is the way of the future, Marx is suggesting that in capitalism workers will be educated at work, and after capitalism this will continue on a new and liberated basis. Oh the joy of working and studying at the same time, as we produce widgets and produce diplomates!... On the other hand consider the role of the reader in the cigar factory, isn't that education at work?

So on one hand, this already happened in the United States, with the reconfiguration of traditional apprenticeships in the 19th century. In addition it occurred in manufacturing industry under Taylorism, where work processes included a limited educative function. But then this process stopped as education was divided from employment—Marx was quite frankly wrong regarding this social trend. White collar work (Mills) primarily has education as an "externality" to the employment process. I'm undecided about this myself, I'm going to be presenting a paper on skill in historical materialism in Australia, and its economic function. My suspicion is that capitalism has politicised skill-formation (as a use-value) into an externality borne as a cost by workers, which means that there are some interesting things happening with exchange value in terms of complex labour—"primary accumulation" perhaps is a way to describe the unpaid proportions of skill. (For a case study, look at unrepaid female university debt—society is not paying the input cost on these women's skills, but they still exert them during their working life). Or consider the recent social work case, where Australian social workers won pay increases based on the systematic gendered under payment of their skills, compared to equivalent male skilled occupations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know how Marx thought that somehow we could all be just sitting around having fun and not doing any work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx discusses relief from work in capitalism in two forms: pleasure and leisure. These are respectively associated with Young Marx and Mature Marx in that schema. The first is more heavily idealist, it constitutes pleasure as self-actualisation through doing things, the classic fishing in the morning, poetry in the afternoon. Leisure is more heavily materialist, it constitutes relief from alienated labour as time free for use. There are problems with these: Marx's category of work in capitalism is social, the worker is the collective worker, exerted labour is socially necessary labour—both of these are collective. Whereas I've normally heard of relief from work phrased individualistically. Both conceptions involve people still making and doing useful things for other people. While you can see aspects of these developing: in terms of pleasure work design is an important area, particularly work design in worker owned cooperatives; in terms of leisure as a demand, see EP Thompson on "Time, Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism." Similarly the discussion of leisure versus industrial democracy in the 1970s due to "automation." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ah yes: how we'd all be working 20 hour weeks because automation would take the boring jobs out of the system, leaving people with the pleasurable, meaningful stuff. That didn't happen either. Pity. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And a shockingly large number of people suggesting capitalism would tolerate a 20 hour week were members of so-called "Communist" parties………yet on the other hand the issue is still cogent. When the Spanish or Hungarians seized the means and tools of production, they sought to implement work processes under workers control, they didn't seek to abolish Dunapentele, but to control it. And sure, they replaced management functions with managers democratically elected—but they didn't design away unpleasant human activity during their six weeks to sixteen months of power. I suspect Marx's idealism needs a kick in the cods: workers, even militants, don't believe it in practice, whereas they're willing to accept a "hard yards" analysis of production structuring if they control production. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even in ostensibly Communist states, there is no worker control of production: A group of elites (the "Communist Party") simply replaced the old group of elite with themselves. They oppressed the workers in equally as bad, or in worse ways, themselves, but told the lie that they were doing it "for the worker's own good". On paper, Marxism looks really good, but in practice Marxism is a convenient excuse for a power elite to seize and maintain power and prevent anyone from the rest of the populace from threatening their stranglehold on power. The greater issue for "worker rights" is how a particular political system concentrates or diffuses power. Traditional Communist states which lasted tended to be "power concentrators" in totalitarian regimes. It is far more informative to look at the results a political system produces than it is to look at the so-called ideals it purports to represent. Systems which produce high standards of living for the working classes are inevitibly those which diffuse power to a greater extent rather than concentrate it into the hands of an elite class. --Jayron32 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, this is an area I spend most of my life thinking about, largely from the position of self-interest in working class autonomy.. We can compare using industrial sociology the relative freedom inside the production process in given societies at various times. One of the things emphasised in our featured article on Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 is the levels of relative worker autonomy in production design required in economy of the soviet style societies due to the chaotic production system—this level of demanded worker autonomy is much higher than in US Fordism, for example. Compare and contrast with Braverman on the evolution of skill in non-soviet industrial production. Similarly, we can examine workplace mobility and observe a relative level of autonomy in the ability to move between workplaces—labour was in more or less continuous short supply in this period—and workplace movement was used as an industrial weapon in soviet societies. Of course, this doesn't mitigate both the inherently anti-working class (see Pirani on the windback of workplace democracy during war communism) attitude of Leninism; nor does it mitigate deliberate decisions to crush working class autonomy with force (56, so many times Poland). Your last piece of analysis is a bit dodgy: soviet-style societies had much flatter income and wealth distributions than non-soviet style equivalent societies; this is a diffusion of power. (Per GDP soviet-style societies are more effective at converting social production into living standard, and until the 1970s the contradictions of the soviet economy at maintaining growth weren't widely known. A growth problem that amusingly comes down to a working class refusal of industrial education and skill as these were viewed as repressive apparatus!) In addition to being a "cheaper" ruling class, the nomenklatura was and from the last time I checked Vietnam and China is much more directly involved in the production process, much like the 19th century bourgeoisie in England or the United States. I think its more valid to construct the brutality of the soviet-style ruling class as a result of its inherent weakness, its fundamental lack of control over the working class and fear of an immanence of independent working class power, than due to a concentration of power in the nomenklatura as such. Weakness instead of strength makes a bully. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but your thinking misses the forest for the trees here: Cavemen dodging being eaten by smilodons had a "flatter income and wealth distribution" and it doesn't mean they had a higher quality of life, across the board. The only metric that counts is quality of life, when you use other metrics as a substitute for that; such as income or income disparity or whatnot, you're missing the entire point. Why is having a "flat income and wealth distribution" an automatic indication of quality of life? The two can be unrelated, and yet you seem to take it as canonical that because there was a flat distribution of wealth, that somehow poor people led higher quality lives. Did all the people starving at the time of the forced collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union feel better about starving knowing that their neighbors were all starving too, since there was a "flat income and wealth distribution" that made sure they all starved together? How egalitarian and wonderful... --Jayron32 19:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gini coefficient is that way. If you've found a way to determine by metrics what is the quality of life, I think you're up for a Swedish gong. Personal consumption is a commonly used proxy for access to material satisfactions, and personal consumption was higher in soviet-style societies when comparing like GDPs. Now obviously proxying personal consumption for actual human satisfactions isn't demonstrative of actual human satisfactions; but economists and political economists are reasonably pleased with this proxy due to the impossibility of reconciling individual desires themselves. I'm not sure what your point is in relation to famines, non-soviet industrial societies have regularly forced famines while food is available. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the focus on the rationale for totalitarianism is moot. Sure, you can find non-Communist totalitarian states who had similar famines to what the Soviets had. That's not the point... --Jayron32 21:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original question, Marx is nodding here to Robert Owen's provision of schooling to child factory workers. Industriousness among schoolchildren was much valued in Victorian England. 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Itsmejudith (talk)

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's hat

What does one call the type of headgear that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is fond of wearing? Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A head tie? Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it a turban. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Described as a 'head tie' in this Liberian report of the start of her second term [2], also here [3], I've also seen it called a 'head wrap' [4] and a 'turban', even a 'turban headwrap'. Mikenorton (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

President term

I wonder can someone run for the president of the US for 2 non consecutive terms now?65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Read the text of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Some states allow governors and others to serve nonconsequtive terms, but that's not true for the Presidency. Shadowjams (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

They didn't ask about more than 2, they asked about exactly 2. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In which case the answer is surely "Yes", not "No". The law prohibits a person from being elected more than twice, but twice is perfectly OK. It doesn't matter whether it's consecutive or non-consecutive. There's an issue when a VP accedes to the presidency on the detah or resignation of the president, and serves more than 2 years of the original term. They can't be elected in their own right more than once after that. But rhe OP made no mention of that special case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The canonical case being Grover Cleveland, as all American schoolboys know (he's the oddball on all Presidential lists). Also, if we wanted to be strict about parsing the OP's question, they don't actually say that they are elected. You can run for President as many times as you wish (as Eugene Debs knew), as long as you do not have a chance of serving more than two terms. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland served well before enactment of the 22nd Amendment. The only thing preventing him from running again was adherence to tradition. D Monack (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he could have been President three times (he could have, Constitutionally, there is no doubt, ergo FDR), but whether the could have been President for two single terms out of sequence. There is no reason to suspect he couldn't do that today, just as he did then. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also that he was wildly unpopular with a large part of his own party. See generally Cross of Gold speech and William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland, by the way, is an excellent name to have handy when you're trying to explain to someone the notion of a multiset. (Another good example is when ten men bat in an inning of baseball, even though there are only nine playing.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright so let say President A ran for president and became president. After 1 term he stopped. Many years later, he wants to run for presidential again. Can he?Pendragon5 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A person may not be elected more than twice to a four year term, but the two times they can be elected can be sequential, can be a half-century apart, and can be anything between - so long as they're a natural-born citizen, aged 35+, who's lived 14 years in the US. (And they can also serve up to two years of a term to which someone else was elected, making the maximum term of a Presidency 10 years, rather than the more normal 8) --Saalstin (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In effect, that's what Teddy Roosevelt did, i.e. he decided not to run for a third term, and then changed his mind and ran again, in 1912. Had the GOP been smart and nominated him, he probably would have won - and probably again in 1916. However, there was no term limit then. Supposing Bush Sr. were to run again, forgetting issues like his age, who would vote for a guy who's going to be an automatic lame duck? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the wording of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution would not seem to preclude an an individual who was ineligible to be elected President (due to term limits) from assuming the office of President by other means. For example, if Barack Obama had selected Bill Clinton as his running mate, and Obama later resigned, would their be anything to bar Clinton from serving the remainder of the term? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the Amendment does not seem to preclude that specific scenario, although in that example Clinton would be ineligible to run on his own, so he would be an automatic lame duck; besides which, such a shenanigan could come at an enormous political cost. It could well result in yet another impeachment trial and/or the need for a Supreme Court interpretation. It could also result in widespread revolt of one kind or another. Maybe technically constitutional, maybe not, but it won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

An example of what's permissible would be George H. W. Bush; there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him from running. The same is true of Jimmy Carter. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they could - knowing that they would be automatic lame ducks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were single-term Presidents. If they won again, they would have another four-year term as President. They would not be lame ducks at all (only having one the possibility of one term is not a "lame duck"). Bill Clinton could not be elected President without it being unconstitutional; that is a different situation, and he too would not be a lame duck, strictly speaking (since you'd actually have to be President to be a lame duck, and he couldn't legally be President). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's bizarre to extend the term lameduck to a president's whole second term. Why then run for re-election at all? (And then you get to the unexpected hanging paradox.)

You're a lameduck when your replacement has already been elected. But not if your replacement is loyal to you (Reagan surely was never a lameduck — no one could ignore Reagan just because GHW Bush was coming in). So maybe by extension you're a lameduck once it becomes clear that the next person to take the oath is of a different party or at least is not your personal ally. --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Twelfth amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", combined with twenty-second amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Bill Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, so he's ineligible to be elected vice-president. --Carnildo (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your logic does not work. 12th amendment explicit says you can't be elected as the president more than twice but it says nothing about vice president. I have heard this statement from one of our founding father:"if it doesn't say you can't do it then you can do it." Something like that.65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

22 says Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, not that he's ineligible to be president, which is the trigger for 12. There are scenarios under the 25th amendment where he could become president, or at least "acting president", after having assumed some other office first. --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that he could be elected to the House of Representatives (and he'd not be the first; John Quincy Adams served in the House for nearly twenty years after the presidency) and become the Speaker, only to have both President and Vice-President die or otherwise become incapable of serving. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, gotcha. The loophole seemed too good to be true. Does that provision also apply to succession by officials below the Vice Presidency? Suppose, for example, that the Secretary of State were Bill Clinton instead of Hillary. If a group photo disaster were to kill off the President, VP, Speaker of the House, and President pro tem of the Senate, would the Presidency fall to Bill as the next official in the United States presidential line of succession? (Our article mentions the usual eligibility requirements of age and citizenship, but doesn't explicitly rule out individuals who are past their term limit.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my misreading of the OPs question... the 12th and 22nd amendment issue is very much unsettled. It's hardly a foregone conclusion that the "loophole" is permitted. Shadowjams (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one cool thing about US constitution. This is one of the thing I respect the most about the US found fathers. For their genius in inventing the best constitution in the world. Unlike most constitutions, are "solid constitution", in the world. Most of the time, the wording is very vague so it is up to the Congress, Supreme Court, powerful politicians... to discuss and decide what to do. The constitution can be interpret in so many different ways, possibly each different way can contradict each others. Our constitution is not a rock, it is like a paper that we can bend it whatever way we think it serves Americans the best. The funny thing is the US's constitution is probably the shortest by far. 65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sturat and baseball bugs don't need to comment on every question asked here. Usually their comments are bad (opinion) jokes or speculation, not information. Not only doesn't that help, it often derails the conversation. Thedoorhinge (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where that comment came from. Are you thinking that the comment immediately before yours came from me ? It did not (and I would never write anything like that). My only contribution to this thread has been to note that the OP asked about 2 non-consecutive US Presidential terms, not more than 2. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is: we don't know and it is rare that a Constitutional amendment is passed just to clear up loopholes, the 25th is the only one I can think of. If it happened, say Bill was next in line as the result of a multiple vacancy, it would probably be determined by a pragmatic decision, not by the courts (see Political question doctrine). Probably it would be whether the people and Congress were willing to accept the situation, which probably they would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The 25th amendment was designed to do exactly that... clear up some issues with the order of succession. But given the 17 amendments since the bill of rights, I suppose it would be correct to call that amendment rare. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I said to clear up loopholes. Most constitutional amendments passed since the Bill of Rights advance a policy agenda (16, 17, 18 for example), reverse a Supreme Court decision (11, 26) or clear up a constitutional problem after a "train wreck" situation (12th, 13-15, arguably 21 and 22). The 25th does not.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous law reviews written on this subject. I don't have access to a free service I could use to answer this question, nor could I do more than provide the basic citations, which only others with access to lexis/westlaw could check. Point being, this is an open question. There's some question about whether or not this would be open to judicial review, or if it's something Congress would decide. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppose something happens to Joe Biden. Could Barack Obama appoint Bill Clinton as vice president under the 12th and 25th amendments?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes he could, but obviously both houses will shoot it down so it's entirely a moot point. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)