Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 17

It's clearly a budget

Under what situation did George W. Bush say, "It's clearly a budget; it's got a lot of numbers in it"? I often hear the quote, but I never hear the context. Typing the phrase into search engines just gives me the isolated quote. Khemehekis (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be a joke, like the one about "How many is a brazilion?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many web sources cite "Reuters, May 5, 2000". Searching Reuters for "clearly a budget" and "lot of numbers in it" finds nothing, and I can't find a way to browse or search the articles by date. -- BenRG (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News: The 'misunderestimated' president? also quotes Reuters on 5 May 2000. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat of a misquote I think. Here, at 1:30 is the actual quote. "It's a budget; there's a lot of line-items, a lot of pages, a lot of ... numbers" seems to be what he actually said. This seems like one of those quotes that gets misquoted, and repeated so often that we forget the original (akin to "Luke, I am your father" from Empire Strikes Back or "Beam me up, Scotty" from the TV show Star Trek, or "Play it again, Sam" from Casablanca, or "Greed is good" from Wall Street) which we frequently quote, and were never actually said exactly like that. The Bush quote doesn't appear to actually be exactly what he said; though it would be in character for the kind of malapropisms he was known for (see Bushism). --Jayron 32 14:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes common for cable news agencies to edit quotes or soundbites - partly for sake of time to fit the station's formatting, but in worst case, sometimes for ulterior purposes.--WaltCip (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing new, as with the examples Jayron32 cited. Another is the famous and oft-cited Apollo 13 quote "Houston, we have a problem" - which was really "Houston, we've had a problem." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elector system trouble scenario

I’m living in a country which uses the standard electoral system found throughout the world.

Scenerio: Issues created amongst the supporters during campaigning therefore the candidate left all of its supporters; mainly because they were making his/her name dirty. The candidate sued all because he/she doesn’t know who done what fully, also does not want to involve himself/herself with such kind of people at all, and now, all are waiting for the jury to justify everything, in time to come, however… Yes, the country I live in is messed up…

Politics is not my topic of course but curiosity arose. What I would like to know:

1) What usually happens after a candidate ~~suspends~~ leaves their campaign? Do they have to endorse someone else or supporters can be given a free will to choose a different candidate?

2) Who’ll be responsible for the campaigners’ behaviours thereafter? The candidate himself/herself, the endorsed candidate, or both candidates? – the reason for asking this is because of the article free will what confuses me, about the destined/predestined course of event(s) of life; if I take things to the atomic level, after all, a candidate is responsible for his/her guidance… And if a supporter does something knowingly, than I believe they'll be responsible for their own actions (as they would be usually)… - Who will be responsible for what to what extend?

Apostle (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "standard electoral system". There are dozens of voting systems in different countries. See Voting System. If a candidate abandons his campaign, what he's required to do after that obviously depends on the laws in your country. And as far as the law is concerned, I would imagine that the campaigners are responsible for their own behavior after that, just as they were before the candidate left the campaign, but again the laws of your country would govern that. CodeTalker (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nether do I. I thought I heard "standard electoral system" words somewhere, so I thought I'd be cool with it here, in front of you guys... Sorry if it didn't make sense.

-- Apostle (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is very scattered, because it winds from questions about an electoral system (without knowing WHICH voting system is being used) and then varies into questions of epistemology. Russell, can you simplify your question and give us a more direct, concise topic you are trying to research? If you do so, we can direct you to better sources to help you find your answers. --Jayron 32 21:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ashamed of the third world country that I'm currently in, otherwise I would've stated...

CodeTalker's words sufficed J. Sorry, I should've used the word "generally" somehow someway, it probably would've made it clearer...

Thank you both. Regards

-- Apostle (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's your homeland, you should honor it, even when it's being run by jerks. If it's not, good luck escaping! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its "illegal" be to "legal" where I currently live so

to your statement. I also hate my skin colour because of the people that exist under my skin colour...

And about good, bad and or evil people. I understand

-- Apostle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal to be legal"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke metaphorically.

-- Apostle (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be cruel to be kind... --Jayron 32 18:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J taught me a "bad deed".

Some had enough evidence to prove some/most/all of their righteous bits before and after the time this guy sued them all. Everyone's background and foreground will be reviewed along in the trial. I laugh cause the way it played out...real life drama... -- Apostle (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a real priest, minister or rabbi played the same in a marrying scene?

Would they ever have to change anything to avoid marrying power activation? Yes, yes they could always annul cause no one really meant it but that is just silly.

Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife? I do. And do you like ice cream? I do. And do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband? No. I now pronounce you man and wife. (Splice film). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than just I-do's, there's also paperwork to be filled out to make it a legal marriage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the equal marriage activists say government marriage is only a few centuries old? There were plays before that. And maybe that denomination would consider them married but the state wouldn't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church weddings also require paperwork. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did 1500s weddings have pre-vow paperwork? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did 1500s plays have weddings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet did and it's from the 1590s. Maybe there's others. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were fictional characters, there would be no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At that period, the female roles were all taken by male actors anyway - and same sex marriage definitely wasn't permitted. 86.141.19.154 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me that a wedding rehearsal would have a similar, and much more common, problem (though it's been a few years and I don't remember if they go through the full set of words). And of course, in the old days, regardless of what the philosophical position of the church might've been, for practical purposes it'd not be recognized as a marriage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The priest that married Maria in the Sound of Music was a real bishop. I don't remember what they said. So just not meaning it is enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they should keep their fingers crossed, just in case. One thinks of Dr. Faustus conjuring up demons on the Elizabethan stage--who is to say that the actor's racking the name of God isn't really racking the name of God, forwards and backwards anagrammatized? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In England, creation of legal relations is a requirement of any contract, so as long as the actors didn't intend to actually get married, it is arguable that no contract existed. Maybe not applicable to matrimony, but I'm no lawyer. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in church weddings, there is the matter of the reading of banns of marriage, a requirement which is has been in force since 1215 and is unlikely to be completed in a stage play, unless the performance lasts several weeks. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Judaism, the rabbi is there to help officiate, but one is not technically needed. I remember a story as a youngster where a boy and a girl were joking around and the boy offered a slice of pizza to the girl for her hand in marriage and he gave her the slice and said the "magic words" one says under the Chuppa. When their teacher found out there was a whole to-do and questions were asked and end result was they were technically married under Jewish law and needed an annulment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a problem in the Middle Ages as well. When I took medieval legal history, one thing we were taught was that before the Council of Trent (1545–1563), a marriage was good in the eyes of God if the two eligible parties (I'm not sure what eligibility was other than of legal majority—age 21—or parental betrothal) exchanged "words" in the present tense ("I take you as my wife." "I take you as my husband." They're married), or if the two exchanged "words" in the future tense and then consummated the marriage ("I will take you as my wife." "I will take you as my husband." They consummate the marriage. They're married.) At common law, more formalities were necessary, and were contentious usually when it came to making determinations of bastardy or whether a man's widow was entitled to her dower. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't know it was so easy. Can you recant two or fewer I divorce thee's in Islam or are they valid for life? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point about wedding rehearsals, I've been through two of them. My own and one for a friend. In neither case was the whole thing read out and such. The officiant just basically said "I'll say the vows here" and went on with the rest of it. Dismas|^(talk) 13:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In countries with a "modern" legal system, the wedding ceremony is meaningless, from a legal standpoint. You become legally married by filing the appropriate paperwork and having a marriage license issued. This is why people who don't desire a big ceremony can just go to a justice of the peace, county clerk, or similar officeholder and get married. Okay, there is common-law marriage, but that's pretty uncommon these days; indeed, many jurisdictions have eliminated it, because the fact that it isn't formalized creates headaches and legal ambiguity. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's either very poorly worded or not really true unless you use an odd definition of "modern legal system". The legal requirements for marriage in NZ are here [1] and here [2]. You can get married at a Registry Office however if you don't you do need to have a ceremony of sorts (and what happens at the registry office is also called a ceremony). The legal requirements for what happens in this ceremony are limited, but just having a marriage licence and filling out the appropriate and paying the fee is not enough. You will not be married unless you fulfill the limited ceremonial requirements. Note that the ceremonial requirements don't have to be religious (and often aren't) or they can mostly be whatever "religion" you want [3].

Of course, you can get legally married in the registry office and then have a ceremony if you desire one somewhere else (as is common in various countries for various reasons) but I'm pretty (I'm sure I could find stats but I'm lazy since it's mostly besides the point anyway) sure most marriages in NZ have the legal ceremony elsewhere with a marriage celebrant of their choosing [4].

So while this is not legal advice, presuming the legal requirements are being met at the ceremony, I'm pretty sure there can only be one marriage celebrant who fulfills the legal requirements in NZ. If there is disagreement over this, I guess the couple will either neither a "neutral" e.g. non religious wedding celebrant in addition or will get a registry office marriage. If you don't have anyone who fulfills the requirements, then it's unlikely you'll be legally married no matter that you filled out the paper work and got a marriage licence. NZ may be a small country but I'm pretty sure I've read of other jurisdictions with similar situations.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In NY, the religious ceremony is the legal ceremony. I think it's like that in many places in the US. In NYC, the officiant has to be registered to perform the ceremony, but regardless, the religious officiant will sign the certificate. Interestingly, in some places (maybe all?) in the US, you don't need a ceremony at all, a written marriage contract is good enough, or a declaration of self-unity. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) BTW, I wasn't trying to say that there would necessarily be restrictions on what the other people who weren't the official marriage celebrant could do (including perhaps multiple exchanges of vows). However I just noticed "There should be no doubt in the eyes of the couple, witnesses and attendees that the marriage ceremony was performed by a Marriage Celebrant" so I wonder if there may be, although this is simply a FAQ rather than the law. Perhaps the official marriage celebrant simply at some stage performing the minimal legal requirements and telling everyone they are doing so would be enough, honestly I have no idea. I expect this rarely comes up, most likely most who want to do so either have multiple ceremonies (even if consecutive) or do the legal part separately perhaps in the registry office rather than having the rabbi, minister and priest (or whatever) in the same ceremony. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]