Humanities desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Electoral College - United States

In the a article Electoral college it says, "The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and the federal district". My question is how is this true? I look at systems in Pakistan and India for example and it seems to be the same to me. People vote for electors and then those electors choose the president. The only difference I see is that the electors in the American, ONLY vote for the president and then their job is done. In India and Pakistan you have the two houses and others choosing the president, in addition to other various duties. But it still is indirect, isn't it? An average citizen in Pakistan doesn't choose who the president will be. He chooses people who will choose on his behalf.75.166.140.82 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: In the US, some members of the Electoral College can vote as they please (although, for various reasons, unfaithful electors are rare). Is this also the case in those other nations ? StuRat (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unfaithful elector, however, has never impacted the results of an election. --Jethro B04:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, theoretically, they could. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that would technically be true, India and Pakistan's presidents are only figureheads. Obama is both head of state and head of government. So it's possible that the US is the only example, or one of the few examples, of a country with a Presidential system with an indirectly elected president. And even then, the results of the popular vote are usually the same as the electoral college vote, with a handful of notable exceptions.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, even the "only example of an indirectly elected executive president" part is flawed, since I think the presidents ofSuriname and Burundi are indirectly elected as well (elected by parliament), and at least in Burundi they are a presidential system. Indonesia's president was also elected by parliament until about 10 years ago when they switched to direct elections. In my country, the Philippines, the President has always been directly elected from the start. South Africa also has a system where the President is elected by parliament and is technically a prime minister but is both head of state and head of government. The same system is used in Botswana and the Marshall Islands. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the electoral college system where people vote for electors who elect the Presidentis unique to the United States; the closest equivalent would probably be Hong Kong's Election Committee, and even then I'm not sure if it is a true parallel to the Electoral College. But it's true that almost all countries with a presidential system directly elect their president.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, America may be the only presidential system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. But America is not the only system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. Correct? So now we are just haggling over what the president does in various systems. But this process of electing a president is not unique to the USA. The articles Electoral_College_(Pakistan) and Electoral_College_(India) say clearly that the president of Pakistan/India is chosen by an electoral college. Am I the only who is confused here? In addition, even if you forget the president and consider the prime ministers, Pakistani prime minister is still elected by the Pakistani National Assembly which is popularly elected so we have an electoral college. In India, the president is not just a figure head (in Pakistan the president is) and the prime minister is appointed by the president which is like two levels of electorals.

So in India, people elect the parliament, The parliament elects the president. The president appoints the prime minister. The president is elected by a college. The prime minister is elected through two colleges.

In Pakistan, people elect the parliament (and the provincial assemblies). Both houses of the parliament and the provincial assemblies elect the president. The prime minister is chosen by the national assembly (the lower house of the parliament). Both the president and the prime minister are elected by a college. The colleges are not the same but a college is used nonetheless. True? 75.166.140.82(talk) 06:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the article is unsourced, so just amend it so it says "an example" instead of "the only example". In France, the Senate is elected by people serving as local councillors, etc., but I don't know if they are referred to as an electoral college in English.Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the key word "executive". The US president is both head of government and head of state. In most of the other examples mentioned, the president is only head of state, with no executive power. thx1138 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is often said, but personally I question how applicable the terms head of state and head of government really are, to the American system.

The notion of "head of state" doesn't seem to mean much, when you really get down to it, beyond the silly preoccupations of diplomats with their own protocol. As that sort of protocol doesn't interest me much (I frankly think the whole thing could be just dispensed with), that's all I want to say about that.

As for "head of government", the US president is very different from at least a Westminster-style HOG, because he has no legislative role, at least not officially (with the exception of the veto, which Westminster HOGs don't have and as a rule don't need). He is the head of the executive branch, not the head of the government as a whole. I don't think the notion of "head of government" really plays very nice with American-styleseparation of powers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Lands Project Corridor system

I have been reading up on the wild lands project and I have some questions about some of their planning. From what I have been able to find out, they want to implement a corridor system in the U.S. that would restrict certain areas of land from certain types of human development, but I haven't been able to find any documents put out by the Wild Lands Project on exactly what kinds of human development would be restricted in the corridors they recommend implementing. Can anyone give me any links to documents explaining what they plan on restricting? Jjhodgson (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this particular proposal, but the general idea of wildlife corridors is to allow animals to move between wilderness areas, so they can migrate, find food, find mates, etc. Therefore, anything which blocks such movement is a problem. In some cases the animals can be accommodated by making special provisions for them. So, for example, if a highway separates two wilderness areas, an occasional tunnel underneath can be constructed to allow them to cross under it safely. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Wildlife Trust of India#Wild Lands Project? Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wildlands Project? They have some rather grand ideas about "corridors" they call "wildways", [1]. If them, then browse their website. I think they are a small organization and not about to do anything particularly large scale. Pfly (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If them" ? StuRat (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"If [you, the OP, wants to know more about] them..." Ok, maybe not the most elegant English... Pfly (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, you've finally found a way to write without using all those pesky words. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

srsly Pfly (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Hate crime" laws and crimes against women

My question is regarding Hate crime laws.

A significant number (though far from all) violent crimes against women are motivated by a hatred of the female half of humanity. An example which springs to mind in my part of the world is Peter Dupas. The sentencing judge, in one of the murder cases, referred to a " a perverted and sadistic hatred of women" as a key motive in his crimes, which included some gruesome stabbings, murders and rapes. I am sure he is far from unique, by a long stretch.

I am not suggesting that every rapist is a hate-criminal. But my question is, in dealing with those such as Dupas who verifiably are, is there any jurisdiction which, in practice, routinely uses hate-crime laws in charging such individuals? And if not, why not?203.45.95.236 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polarization in US politics

What reasons have been suggested for the US political polarization and the lack of a significant middle ground which confounds a normal distribution model? Ankh.Morpork 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's often suggested that closed primary elections cause more extreme candidates to appear on the ballot. See[2] for example. The idea: closed primary voters tend to be the most passionate about their party, i.e. extremists. They will support the most extreme primary candidate, so the only candidates to make it through the primaries will be extreme ones. Staecker (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it may well be the case that closed primaries promote political partisanship, I am curious whether this is not just the result of the idiosyncrasies of a particular political mechanism but also a manifestation of wider social divergences that have effectuated this schism. Ankh.Morpork 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't necessarily need lots of extremists voting in primaries to get that effect. A first-past-the-post system tends to result in a race to the middle. With a closed primary, "the middle" is the middle of that party, rather than middle of the nation, which results in the actual presidential election being a right vs left thing rather than the centre-right vs centre-left election you would get in a standard first-past-the-post system. (Voters in primaries do take electability into account to some extent, which means you do end up with someone closer to the centre than most of the party, but they are still a long way form the centre.) --Tango (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever model or explanation is used, it will have to account for the fact that the Democratic party remains pretty much what it's been for the last 40 years, while the Republican party has become more rigid and ideologically extreme (the "Rockefeller Republicans" used to be a significant wing of the party, but after this November's elections, Susan Collins will be just about the only remaining "Rockefeller Republican" officeholder). From Jim de Mint's "Waterloo strategy" of not cooperating with any measures for economic recovery etc. if they might redound to the political benefit of Obama (for some reason not mentioned on the Jim de Mint article) to the fanatical and dogged determination to retain tax policies which greatly favor the ultra-wealthy (seen in the debt ceiling crisis and "fiscal cliff"), all Republican economic measures seem to be guided by extremist Ayn Rand / Grover Norquist ideologies, and a concern for the well-being of the ultra-wealthy far above all others... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few grains of salt to go along with AnonMoos's left wing view of an objective description of American politics.

Consider that Romney, who socialized medicine in Massachusetts, was the most "moderate" of the candidates to chart in the Republican primary, and is despised by a large portion of the Republican base as a tool of the moderate establishment. Note that Romney wants to cut taxes across the board, and limit deductions, which allow the rich to avoid taxes, at $17,000. As for who's moved where, compare "New Democrat" Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget and ended welfare as a lifetime entitlement, with Barack "Where'd that $6,000,000,000,000.00 go?" Obama, who's repealed the 1994 welfare reform, seized General Motors, and socialized 1/6th of the economy. But yeah, blame it all on a 30-years dead Russian Jew if you need a handy boogity man. P.S. Atlas Shrugged Part II is in theaters if you need a good scare. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that AnonMoos' post was a satire of leftist rhetoric, meant to illustrate the issue by example, i.e. that Republicans who object to an ever-expanding welfare state are "extremists". When Democrats insist that not raising taxes is "extremist", they've forsaken the middle ground. Romney tosses red meat to his right, but he's more-or-less a moderate like Bill Clinton ended up being. If the Democrats take another beating like they did in 2010, they may find it necessary to move back to the center. 24.209.99.109 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the current circumstances, with the ultra-wealthy paying a smaller fraction of US taxes than in many decades, while middle-class take-home pay is stagnant and student-loan debts pile up, placing rigid inflexible dogmatic adherence to Grover Norquist pledges as your highest priority above all other priorities (such as avoiding drastic and draconian cuts to all federal govt. non-military spending, or preventing a further U.S. govt credit rating downgrade) is far out of the traditional mainstream, and appears to be motivated by a fanatical devotion to extremist Ayn Rand ideology and/or a concern only for the well-being of ultra-wealthy combined with a callous indifference to the well-being of everybody else. Romney has (or had) some moderate instincts, but to get ahead in today's GOP, he's had to present himself as being more ultra than the ultras (and he doubled down on that by choosing Ayn-Randite Paul Ryan for his VP), so it would be foolish to vote for Romney based on trust in his "moderation". And I notice you didn't try to dispute my point about the Democratic party being not too different from what it was about 40 years ago -- while the GOP has radically changed since then... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree, but not on the last. Both parties have galloped way to the right since 1972: Nixon vs. McGovern (probably a little left of today's Jill Stein), Nixon sometimes, but not always, a little to her right, except on foreign intervention, where far to the right. Today's Dems are far to the right of the 1972 Republicans. What's the world come to, when you, AnonMoos, are the left & I have to cover your flank? :-) Have others ever seen a real leftie?John Z (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously many details and surrounding circumstances have changed over the course of 40 or so years, and certain slogans (such as "full employment") which didn't have much of a chance of being implemented have been abandoned. However, I think it's basically true that the Democratic party occupies somewhat the same overall position on the political spectrum that it has done for the last 40 years or so, while the ideological center-of-gravity of the Republican party has shifted radically during that same time. If the Democratic party has remained pretty much where it was (or even drifted slightly rightwards), while the Republican party has undergone a radical transformation, then it would appear to me that almost all the "polarization" has been on one side, and it's pointless and obfuscatory to pretend that there's been a mutual or "balanced" polarization. (Note that I don't include under "polarization" a party seeking to consolidate its power through legislative committee assignments, gerrymandering, etc. --this is tactical maneuvering, not ideology.) AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the biggest shift might have been with the Dems. They've both moved far to the right. Both 2012 party positions would have been thought mentally & morally deranged in 1972. Because they are. For full-throated unabashed lunacy, yes, you have to go to the Repubs, but the Dems are the same under a thin veneer, and can be more effective enemies of the 99% because of this. "Full employment" was not a slogan, but something which was consciously abandoned. It is the easiest thing in the world to achieve full employment. No nation which has ever tried has failed. The postwar era was the most prosperous in history because just about every state in the world decided to have full employment. And then nearly every one abandoned it. Nixon was way to the left of either Obama or Romney, a hawkish Jill Stein. He proposed a real national healthcare system, a guaranteed government job for everyone, even a negative income tax. He started the EPA. In important ways, the Repubs moved to the left of the Dems in actuality, if not rhetoric. To attack Reagan, the Dems became deficit terrorists inventing risible, imaginary problems with deficit spending. So with a shift understood only by a few economists & Chomsky at the time in the intelligentsia, but understood by ordinary voters, reversing the pattern since FDR or a bit before, the Republicans became the big spenders, with low unemployment and a good economy. Even though Republican spending was on the worst, most corrupt, welfare-for-the-rich things, and they raised taxes on the 99%, it could be better than high-tax austerity under the Dems. I mean, I wish you were right AnonMoos, I really do.John Z (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why/how does the US system force the wide spectrum of political factions to coalesce into only two parties?

Looking at the US from the outside, it seems like the Republicans could "sensibly" be split into at least three or four distinct parties ranging from "hard right" to "centrist-tory" and the Democrats could similarly split ino a spectrum ranging from "lib-dem" to "classic socialists". In many respects there are wider differences inside the two parties than between them. Roger (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two-party_system#Causes might help a bit. Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! WHAAOE wins again! Roger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that an ideological spectrum cannot exist — it does exist. It's that (as the article linked to discusses) we have a winner-take-all system in the United States. In individual races, there is no prize for coming in second place: the first place person gets everything. In the Presidential elections, each state (with one exception) basically gets to cast its votes for one person, in the end. The result of this is a system that has much less flexibility when it comes to minority parties than, say, European parliamentary systems, where a party that can must 33% of the vote is considered to be truly impressive, because they're get a third of the seats all to themselves. Third parties (much less fourth or fifth parties) serve only to split the vote from whatever of the other two parties they might have otherwise been inclined to support. (I'm not casting that as a moral argument — sometimes there's a good reason to want to split the vote of your own party.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, in 1987, which required each media outlet to supply "equal time for opposing viewpoints" is a probably a prime cause of polarization. Under that policy, people were exposed to all viewpoints. Now, conservatives only watch conservative media outlets and liberals only watch liberal media outlets, so each has their own worldview reinforced and magnified, not moderated as before. StuRat(talk) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The polarization began well before the late 1980s. The idea that people were truly exposed to all viewpoints prior to the late 1980s is completely silly. (And while I respect, I guess, the attempt to make it look like this is something that affects "both sides," it should be noted that study after study has shown that it is the conservatives who are at the moment most limited in the media they consume, and that most non-conservatives are comparatively broad in what sorts of things they watch and read. There is no liberal equivalent to Fox News in terms of market share and complete polarization.)

A better historical approach, in my view, would look at the broader evolution of partisan politics over the 20th century. The period of most harmony between the political parties was the early 1960s. A lot of stuff happened since then, though, which led to more or less the politics we have today. A very lively account of this is Rick Perlstein's Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. --Mr.98(talk) 21:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California has changed its closed primary system and we still see examples of extremist candidates. The state legislative district one district east of where I live has two extremist right wing Republicans running against each other, because the Democratic and moderate Republican candidates were eliminated in the primary. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have the Republican winner of the primary run against the Democratic winner ? StuRat (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are truly open primaries and voting in one doesn't stop you voting in the other, then there isn't actually a Republican primary and a Democratic one. What would be the difference between the two? --Tango (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you still have to be a registered Republican to run in the Republican primary and vice-versa. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but there is nothing stopping a Democrat registering as a Republican. It might stop someone running in both primaries, but it wouldn't control which primary they run in. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as European, your politics don't look particularly polarised to me. You seem to have a left of right party and a centrish right party. It's the way British politics looks to be heading, too. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the personal politics of the average Republican voter vs. the personal politics of the average Democratic voter, overall national polarization could be considered mild; but when it comes to Congress in the last few years, the way that the tea-party-leaning group among Republican legislators blocks almost all cooperation and compromise, and their willingness to force stunt maneuvers which are demonstrably not in the U.S. national interest (such as last year's debt ceiling credit rating downgrade, or the upcoming "fiscal cliff") is quite apparent...AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's been a change from characterizing the other party from the "opponent" to the "enemy", and any collaboration with the enemy would be seen as treason. I wonder if room hasn't opened up for a Moderate Party to form in the center. StuRat (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious. Presumably, if one formed, their logo would be a shoehorn. --Dweller (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being midway between the red and blue, they would presumably choose purple as their color. The animal mascot is bit trickier, though, as it would need to be as fat as an elephant and as stupid as a jackass. How about a hippo ? They also have big mouths, are aggressive, like to spray manure around liberally and are never found far from a place where they can drink, so that's spot on. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

World Trade Center target long before 9/11

I just stumbled upon this CNN article in which it's stated that Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, envisioned hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building in New York. My question is, since when did it become a target? And were there ways to avoid an attack? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The WTC was evidently a target since before the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

2) Eric Harris' delusional adolescent ravings make no reference to the WTC. CNN's reporters ought to learn to distinguish 'detailed plans' from 'extravagant fantasies'. Harris' proven ability to commit a firearms massacre is no guide as to his ability to 'hijack a load of bombs', etc.

3) It's easy to be wise after the fact. Presumably some of the anti-terrorist measures now in place might have been effective in preventing the attacks. However, introducing those measures would doubtless have causes the terrorists to choose a different strategy. The risk of an Al-Qaeda-backed hijacking was clearly known in the 1990s, as I recall an 'Alex' cartoon strip in the Daily Telegraph referring to 'this Bin Liner chappie' in such a context from well before 2001. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were a spate of prognosticators after the '93 attack saying that the next time they would use planes. There was also a lot of talk in August of 2001 that there was chatter about a big attack coming. I have searched for this on occasion, but it's very hard given 9/11 results drown out the desired hits. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as ways to avoid an attack, simply banning people from bringing weapons on board in the form of box-cutters went a long way. Whoever decided to allow those was a moron and should have been fired for incompetence. There are security checks which put quite a burden on the passengers, like pat downs, but how many people will be seriously inconvenienced by not being able to carry box-cutter knives with them ? StuRat (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeprevious thread about the boxcutter issue. It's not even certain that the weapons (if any), were boxcutters (Stanley knives for UK readers).Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... [3]. Etcetera. They're likely if they can spot a hand grenade lying in a suitcase. A box cutter is so simple, I can't imagine how they could stop it. I mean, how do they tell if a Zippo lighter has a square of razor blade hidden in it? How do they stop someone from mounting that on some kind of plastic handle they carried along? Wnt (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Razor blades should show up well on X-ray machines. Also, a bare razor blade wouldn't be a very effective weapon, you really need the rest of the tool to go with it. And, lighters shouldn't be allowed on a plane, either. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that that older thread included an incorrect assertion that the knives couldn't really kill anyone. Apparently Daniel M. Lewin, the first casualty of the September 11th attacks, was killed with one of the knives by having his throat stabbed or slashed - not sure how many others died this way. This was despite Lewin having some military training as described in American Airlines Flight 11. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autism & Mercury - Government Conspiracy for Population Control?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Autism Epidemic keeps progressing unchecked. It was 1 / 166, 1 / 150, and now 1 / 88 kids who are born have autism.

China gets to be overt with their population control policy. Their citizens do not have as much power to fight back against it; they are often repressed and brutalized.

However, way too many Americans would be up in arms about anything similar.

Therefore, what if a different way to control population growth happens behind our backs, out of sight of the media?

It could be that they leave pollutants in the food (and sometimes water?) supplies on purpose, so that pregnant mothers who take them cause their babies to be born with defects that make them "socially ineligible" to marry and have kids of their own someday. Do you see the EPA mandatingmercury removal from the catches of fish?

And so, with enough children having such defects, the government can discreetly breathe a sigh of relief and not worry about population overgrowth.

And possibly, because I post this conspiracy theory here, I could get taken away by trenchcoated men.

So,

A. How do we know that there is no governmental conspiracy to control population growth by infecting kids with autism-inducing pollutants before they're born? (Please do not answer if you are a governmental agent who is capable of participating in said conspiracy.)

B. IF there has been no secret population-control conspiracy all this time, why has there no effort been shown to remove all mercury from all food? As well as all other toxins from food causing birth defects that lead to social ineligibility to reproduce later in life?

C. Society fought long and HARD against HIV, and we're (slowly) winning that battle; why can't we fight as hard in a battle against Autism by at least isolating catalysts thereof and fighting / removing them?

D. Children of Men depicted a sterile society "due to pollution" and unknown factors. If pollutants cause Autism, why didn't we see many Autistic ("socially sterile") citizens all over the film? --70.179.167.78 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has asked a related question here. -Ka renjc 19:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) You seem to think that the proper way to handle conspiracy theories is to believe them all, unless they can be disproven. This will lead you to believe an infinite number of conspiracy theories. The only reasonable approach is to require proof that a conspiracy exists, before you believe it. This particular conspiracy theory is one of the silliest I've ever heard. Overpopulation is a problem in the third world, not in the developed world, where people have chosen to have fewer children. If there's any conspiracy regarding population, it's the opposite, to ignore the issue of global overpopulation, due to resistance to birth control and abortion. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B) Those "toxins" just aren't the serious issue you think they are. The number of people who die from those is minuscule. Far more serious issues with food are overconsumption of calories, sugar, salt, animal fats, saturated fats, trans fats, and bad cholesterol. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C) If you want a conspiracy theory, the more likely reason for more cases of autism being reported is because the medical establishment can make money off those cases. So, while in former generations a kid might have been viewed as "just shy", the same kid is now given an "autism spectrum disorder" label and medicated. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) Because there are far better ways of reducing the population than having a small number of people born with a slightly reduced chance of reproducing that also have a high chance of not being productive members of society and being a drain on resources (those ones that are productive members of society will tend to be the ones that do successfully reproduce). If the government wanted to reduce population growth, they would be better off doing things that reduce fertility (and fertility numbers have been dropping over the last few decades, so you can have a field day with that one!).

B) The evidence that these toxins are particulary harmful is pretty thin. In fact, there isn't even good evidence that autism has been on the increase (diagnoses of autism have, but that isn't the same thing).

C) The causes of AIDS are well known - it is a virus (HIV) that is transmitted sexually. That makes it fairly easy to fight. The causes of autism are not at all well known.

D) Because whoever wrote that film didn't think of it? Or perhaps because you are wrong that autists tend to be "socially sterile"?--Tango (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP, the Government are too preoccupied with implementing their MMR vaccine stratagem to bother with mercury. Ankh.Morpork 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The major flaw in an autism population-control theory is that autism doesn't cause population control. Autistic people still reproduce. They are not "socially ineligible" except on the furthest end of the spectrum. Similarly, the socioeconomic groups hardest hit by the alleged autism epidemic are those far above the poverty line — those which reproduce relatively less frequently anyway and are not the target of any kind of population control efforts (the government does target populations for reduced family size, but this is usually the poor). In any case, it is not in the US government's interest to reduce the population rate overall — it gets nothing out of that.

None of the logic on this works out: the government is not desperate about reducing the domestic population; autism doesn't affect the classes of people who you'd expect it to if the government was trying to do that (in other words, it doesn't affect the classes of people who are traditionally targeted for population control measures); and autism doesn't affect the fecundity rates at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no autism epidemic. Its existence is a pernicious lie. Detection rates are improving because awareness is better; the diagnostic criteria have changed over the years, too - and they're changing again next year with the release of DSM-V. But people on the autistic spectrum are not 'socially ineligible to marry', or anything of the sort. I should know; I'm engaged to one.

This is the second crazy 'autism epidemic' question we've had lately. The only thing I've seen an epidemic of is (in the US) prescribing ADHD drugs (which, funnily enough, are a hair's-breadth in chemical terms from being crystal meth) to kids with ASD, or without any neurological difference at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, great news, mazel tov! μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that, even if I don't agree completely with your logic, you have some valid points. Autism is on the way up and another amazing thing: a teacher who is a friend of mine, told me that governmental agents ask regularly about children who tend to be autistic, and offer early educational packages about several technologies. It's amazing but true, maybe they are not trying to provoke autism to reduce population, but to cause autism to obtain more technology minded children. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OsmanRF34, you piqued my curiosity, what do you mean by "early educational packages". Thanks for the clarity! Marketdiamond(talk) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...some valid points". Which ones precisely? An unsupported assumption that the increase in autism diagnoses equals an rise in incidence of the condition. An unsupported assumption about rhe causes of autism. Some speculative "what if"s and "it could be"s about an unsupported conspiracy theory. And in response, a FOAFtale and conspiracy theory mark 2, and not a reference in sight. This is the Reference Desk. It "does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." - Ka renjc 12:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general question - how do we know there isn't a government conspiracy to sicken us? - is a serious question, very much worth asking. Especially when it comes to other governments who might have a grudge against us... Biological warfare is serious business, and there have been credible-sounding accusations of for example the use of thallium, parathion, cholera, ricin, anthrax spores and God knows what else during the civil war in Rhodesia.^[4] A lot of these allegations remain difficult to be sure about to this day, despite all the evidence that's come up. The prospect that some other country could be spreading obesity-causing adenoviruses or asthma-inducing toxins or whatever it is that causes autism is far from impossible. I certainly hope that there are real government agencies that make a point of watching for such things. But that shouldn't stop us from asking the question ourselves -how can we know? Wnt (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we don't know what causes the vast majority of cases of autism would tend to suggest that no-one is spreading it on purpose.AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is altogether persuasive on its own. Remember, an unethical regime wouldn't be hobbled by the same ethical considerations as researchers - instead of studying correlations or trying to develop an animal model, they can simply inject 50 pregnant women with "vitamin supplements" and see if a suspected cause is real or not. Or they might work through things the other way, exposing women to various agents to see what happens; a result might be autism or any other disease at random. So we can't be entirely sure that they aren't able to attack us with something we don't know is dangerous, which would make it a lot harder to surveil for.

That said, I do think it is very, very, unlikely. A simple attack would be expected to affect people more in one part of a country, in a potentially recognizable pattern, depending on where a contaminated product was sold. And cases should spike in a narrow window of time when the agent is deployed. Yes, I can picture other scenarios, like if someone has long term control over the plant where cocaine-free coca extract is prepared for Coca-cola, so that they could gradually introduce agents over time that would be distributed to a large part of the world; but such a scenario still leaves them hanging out in the wind, afraid one curious person is going to spot the contaminating compound and wonder why it's there and what effect it has on people. Nonetheless, I'm really speculating here, and I know there must be some serious work being published by experts somewhere on actually looking for such threats. I just want to encourage people to think of how we can find such sources. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we "know" with 100% epistemic certainty that the inhabitants of the planet Tralfamadore aren't sprinkling pixie-dust on our breakfast cereal every morning? How do you "know" that you're not the only one who exists? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt Homeland Security is looking for pixie dust ... but poisons, on the other hand ... Wnt (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arlen Specter's middle name

Hi. I've posted my inquiry at Talk:Arlen Specter#Middle name. Any help from the reference desk wizards would be appreciated. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native Pennsylvanian here and just barely old enough to remember the day prior to Specter talking his Senate seat, for the life of me and I actually did use some nifty Pennsylvania data mines I know of online I have never known him as anything more then Arlen J. Specter, and alas all my data resources failed me, though I did not dig through Philadelphia archives or Google news prior to the 1980's. Stumper, and deceptively so.Marketdiamond (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil HDI

How does Brazil have a high HDI with stuff like this happening all the time? That's the kind of stuff you'd expect in a war zone, not a developed country. --128.42.221.109 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a developing country. Consider that also the US has problem zones and a violence problem. A country can improve on average, even if that doesn't include all its citizens. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a developing country have a high HDI? --168.7.232.11 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are four stages of HDI: low, medium, high and very high. Brazil has high., which is not a big deal, since it is the 87th country in the world. Mexico is the 57th and Cuba the 51th. Calling it high doesn't mean much, and won't mean that there is not lots of poverty there, it's just that others are even worse off. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain what HDI is, or link to an article? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Development Index --168.7.229.36 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Caesar Einstein

What do they mean by "He was the last known biological grandchild of renowned physicist Albert Einstein."? Is it mean that he is the last grandson of Albert Einstein that died?184.97.253.165 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would phrase it "Of the biological grandchildren we know of, he was the grandchild of Albert Einstein who died last." StuRat (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. "He was the last surviving known biological grandchild of renowned physicist Albert Einstein (relatively speaking)." Back tobureaucratese school for you, Stu. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Almost the exact same wording is used in"The legacy of Albert Einstein lives on with Dr. Thomas Martin Einstein", although it's not exactly what you'd call a reliable source (a blog). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like old Al only had ~~two~~ four biological grandchildren. Aside from Bernhard, Klaus and two others all died young. The "known" part comes about because we don't know what happened to his daughter Lieserl Einstein. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert was quite the ladies' man, and slept with numerous women in addition to his first and second wives. His"string of mistresses" might well have resulted in one or more pregnancies, in the era before the pill. It was not at all a rare or occasional thing. He screwed one mistresstwice a week for close to a year, and this was tolerated by his second wife. He might have had biological grandchildren from his mistresses, although I have seen no reliable accounts of same. It would be interesting to see if any likely relatives turned up if his known descendants or other relatives got their DNA analyzed by the genealogical DNA services which now offer DNA analysis of a spit sample for a few hundred dollars and then list all relatives from immediate family to 5th cousins among others who've had the test done.Edison (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]