Humanities desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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

November 10

self-injected medicines

Not seeking medical or legal advice: this is intended to be about health policy. I'm wondering what the general rules are about letting people inject themselves with drugs (such as vaccines), since going to the doctor to get a shot seems like a needless Covid-19 hazard these days if you can give yourself the shot instead. I know diabetics inject themselves with insulin, and I have the impression that you can't buy injectables without a prescription because they don't want junkies to have easy access to needles, but I'm wondering if there are other issues around self-injection if you have a prescription (perhaps through tele-medicine) for the drug. Do diabetics have to get in-person instruction to make sure they don't stick themselves in the eye or anything like that? I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of giving myself a shot if the doctor says I can do it, but obviously am not requesting individualized advice about that here on refdesk. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: legal jurisdiction makes all the difference in the (known) world. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I meant about it being general. I'm in California and there was a guy from (I don't remember which country) who was surprised that we can't just go into a store and buy syringes here. He uses them for non-medical purposes like dispensing tiny amounts of lubricants into machinery. Oh well, I'll ask my doctor about doing it myself when the time comes. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know that you can't? Where I live (Ontario, Canada), some products in drugstores are not stocked on open shelves but that may just mean you have to speak to the pharmacist, not that you need a prescription. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Several vaccine candidates require cryogenic storage to stay effective. Moderna’s vaccine requires −4 degrees Fahrenheit and Pfizer’s −94 degrees Fahrenheit.[1] And that is during transport as well as storage. Rmhermen (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Corrected your minus signs for clarity.) --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think some drugs are easier than others for relatively ignorant people to self-inject. It took about 2 minutes for them to teach me how to inject myself with Heparin subcutaneously, but it's fairly hard to get that wrong. Not a doctor, but I'm fairly confident it wouldn't be so easy if they'd have wanted it done intravenously or some of the other types of injection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Type 1 diabetic here. Likewise, it was very easy to learn how to inject insulin when I was first diagnosed, but insulin is injected subcutaneously using a short, fine needle. It's very easy to do. Turner Street (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Menin Gate, and what others?

Our article on the Menin Gate says that Reginald Blomfield said that this work of his was one of three that he wanted to be remembered by. What were the other two? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger than just being one of three, apparently this was the one work Blomfield wanted most to be remembered by, since he later wrote, "With me the Menin Gate is perhaps the only building I have ever designed in which I do not want anything altered, and if I am ever remembered I hope it may be by the Menin Gate."^[2] There is a citation that GBS's snippet view does not afford me to see, but which is probably from his Memoirs of an Architect. It is likely that these memoirs will also reveal the other two works, but I did not spot an online version. --Lambiam 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"[I]f I am ever remembered, I hope it may be by the Menin Gate, my design for the completion of the Quadrant and Lambeth Bridge." From Blomfield's Memoirs of an Architect. --Antiquary (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: and @Antiquary: Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bush v. Gore

A question about Bush v. Gore. In looking at it, I am somewhat surprised that the plaintiff and the defendant are actually Bush and Gore. I would have thought it would be something like "the DNC v. Florida Secretary of State" ... or "Gore v. Board of Electors" ... or "Gore Campaign v. Bush Campaign" ... or something like that. I can't imagine that the individual named Al Gore sued the individual named George Bush. (If so, what did Gore allege that Bush did, illegally?) I mean ... Bush himself does not count the votes ... or certify the winner ... or any such thing. How does Bush find himself being a defendant? Or is the Bush v. Gore title some simplified sort of short-hand / parlance for a lengthier and fuller title? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see in the article that the full title is George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al. But, my question above still stands. Wasn't the thrust of the lawsuit that the State of Florida should / should not count certain ballots ... or should / should not certify their results ... or should / should not hold a recount .. or something like that? Bush himself and Gore himself, technically, have nothing to do with the election process / procedure ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Joseph's logic makes sense for the defendant but not for the plaintiff, as Bush is the one who was claiming he was damaged by events. By this reasoning I would have expected Bush v. Florida. But it wasn't that either. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the case a bit, I think that what Gore did to get his name in the case title was to request the manual recounts that were not mandatory under state law. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This came up here last week and I remember mentioning Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close To Call, which was apparently a detailed write-up about the lawsuits. I never got around to reading it, but it was supposed to have been good. You might look for it if you are trying to research this topic. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is pretty straightforward. The case below was Gore v. Harris (Harris being the Florida Secretary of State at the time), but the petitioner for certiorari was Bush and respondent was Gore, therefore the case at SCOTUS was Bush v. Gore. There were likely many, many more parties and intervenors below; the information on this is not readily available. But at the end of the day, the two parties that were most impacted by the Supreme Court's decision were the parties to the petition for certiorari. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, and as an aside, it’s worth noting that SCOTUS case names are partly decided by the petitioner (insofar as the petitioner writes the case caption). The Supreme Court rules do specify issues like who the parties to a petition are. Current Supreme Court Rule 12.6 as well as 12.4 are relevant (and in the 1999 Rules as well). There may be additional mechanics I’m not aware of. Another matter is that cases appealed from a state court system, particularly where they involve some unusual procedural history, can seem very strange. A classic example is Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee. As an additional aside, now and again there is controversy over who the lead parties are in a case. Zubik v. Burwell annoyed some conservative commentators because another party to the case was a Catholic charity called Little Sisters of the Poor, and it struck them as a missed PR opportunity to make the Obama administration look like it bullied nuns and the impoverished. A more recent case indicates people picked up on that. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A High Court case involving a dispute between an Arab king and his wife was listed under fictitious names. For reasons of commercial sensitivity/privacy cases may proceed under initials or case numbers. For example, when I brought a winding-up petition against a rather useless bank, which was handled by the renowned Mr Justice Harman, in the Chancery Division it was listed simply as "In re a Company No 00**** of 1991." 95.145.0.52 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In yesterday's Evening Standard under the byline Listing error gives Bugs Bunny his day in court we read:

Officials have blamed a testing error after a string of cartoon characters were listed as defendants at a crown court.

Initial lists issued for Stoke-on-Trent crown court showed Bugs Bunny, Captain Hook, Road Runner and Buzz Lightyear as due for hearing today. Mickey and Minnie Mouse were also listed as being due before a judge from 10am. The courts system has been beset by problems because of the Covid crisis. There was online speculation the list was a staff prank.

Something similar happened when I worked in the pools industry. Coupons were inserted into national newspapers and agency staff were recruited to type name and address details into the mailing list when they came back. The same characters appeared. When I worked in Fleet Street the casuals were supposed to declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue for tax. Similar names were entered on the timesheets. 95.145.0.52 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAIDOC Week

There's an annual event in Australia called NAIDOC Week. It celebrates all indigenous Australian peoples, cultures and traditions. It's usually held in early July but this year it was put back to November (this is NAIDOC Week now).

NAIDOC stands for National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee.

While I'm aware the celebrations are not about the Committee as such, except maybe in passing, I can't think of any other national-level cultural event in any other country that was named after a committee. Is there such a beast? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is a party the same as a committee for your purposes? July 1 in China is observed as Chinese Communist Party Founding Day. --Jayron 32 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're different. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump vs Biden

I don't understand US law fully. I would like to know if the lawsuits etc. that Trump is bringing in relation to the recent election are merely protests or is there a realistic chance that the result will be reversed? Is there any precedence for this? Thanks. -- 86.157.89.50

There is nothing wrong with contesting election results. It has happened often and has even led to reversing a few results. However, the fact that we are talking about a handful of states, each with 10s or 100s of thousands of vote margins in favor of Biden, means that there would need to be conclusive evidence of MASSIVE fraud and corruption for that to happen here. What we are watching here is what a friend of mine has called a "Trumper tantrum". A bully who has always been able to get his way by bluster is having to face up to the fact that people are tired of his act. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While no one can know the internal workings of another person's mind, on the face of it the justification for the lawsuits is that the Trump campaign believes that large numbers of illegally cast ballots were counted in states where Trump lost by narrow margins, and that these illegally cast ballots were the difference in his losing those states. It is unclear exactly what about the votes that the Trump campaign is alleging makes them illegal, and several already-decided court cases have said as much, see Here where a Michigan judge threw out the lawsuit over the matter, as has one in Pennsylvania, as has one in Georgia. The central issue seems to be a lack of evidence of the levels of illegal voting or fraud that the Trump campaign alleges, the Trump campaign lawyers seem to be making the allegations, but provide no basis for the allegations, or any specificity on even the kind of fraud they allege happened. --Jayron 32 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In America, anyone can sue anyone about anything. That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A progressive commentator Cenk Uygur claimed that Trump is collecting donations for the lawsuits but the fine print notes that half the donations are being redirected to campaign expenses. So the lawsuits may provide cover to raise more money to pay off the expenses of pre-vote rallies. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of a day or so ago, prediction markets were giving Trump an implied odds in the area of 10-1 of being able to stay in office. I.e. a long shot but not impossible. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that the sole purpose of the lawsuits is to protest the election outcome, as that would be an inappropriate use of the courts and subject the lawyers signing the papers to sanction. See FRCP Rule 11 (particularly Rule 11(b)) and comparable state laws/rules dealing with representations to the courts. There is precedent for protesting election results in the courts, but the scale necessary to change the outcome appears to be unprecedented. The issue I would want to know about is whether a lawsuit would fail for mootness if it couldn't change the national outcome. I could make arguments in either direction. And Rule 11(b)(2) is a low enough bar in practice that I believe it could be met. Election issues, after all, if subject to strict mootness would arguably be capable of repetition, yet evading review. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 20, 2021 . . . what if . . .

No surprise that Trump is doing everything possible to thwart to election results in his favor. What if . . . Trump manages to delay things and no one is able to be sworn in on Jan 20/21? Would someone be sworn in as "interim President?" 216.223.104.13 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, to wit:

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. (bold mine)

.

That law in question is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which in this case would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That will be the incoming HofR, since they are seated on January 3, and elect their officers shortly thereafter. --Jayron 32 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, potentially, Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi could become interim President if the situation is not rectified? If the latter (especially), wouldn't THAT get Trump going! 216.223.104.13 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though because of the way that the VP and President come as a "package deal", Harris is as unlikely as Biden (the same with Trump/Pence) if the results were still in dispute January 20. The likely acting president would be Nancy Pelosi, given that it is quite likely that a) the Democratic Party will win the House and b) She would be selected the Speaker. It is worth noting that she would only be an acting President and her role would only extend until the dispute was resolved; the law is clear that she would not become a regular President, and that the regular President would become President as soon as we know who that is. She would, however, have all of the powers of the President, just on a temporary basis until the dispute were resolved. I should stipulate that we do know who won the election, and there is no significant dispute over these results, excepting from the person who lost the election and some of his supporters. --Jayron 32 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, on 14 December, the Electors in the Electoral College cast their votes-in theory-for the presidential candidate that their state voted for. I say "in theory" because as I understand it, the US constitution does not require that the Electors must follow the popular vote of their states (except those that have legislated that they must do so). But assuming that on that date they vote as their states popular vote, then is not the die cast that Biden/Harris are POUS and VPOUS? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. All that's left then is for the joint session of Congress to receive and count the electors' votes. Electors' votes can be rejected, but only by a majority of both Houses of Congress. See Electoral College (United States). --47.152.93.24 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the point. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Side comment: Julius Caesar's remark is usually translated as "the die is cast", but we don't usually use "cast" with that meaning today. We'd more likely say "the dice have been rolled" (and the implication is that now we'll have to see how they come up). He wasn't talking about casting, which creates something in its pretty much its finished form (with Bill's intended implication that things are settled). --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "cast" in "the die is cast" doesn't seem all that rare, at least not in my ENGVAR. --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: I would expect any literate Brit to be familiar with the term and its origin, and recognise Billreid's variation on it, although amusingly, "die cast" also has a metallurgical meaning which might also be applicable to the situation – once cast, a metal object's shape is hard to alter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.194 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed. Billreid's usage of "cast" is the utterly normal and everyday usage for submitting a ballot or vote. Caesar's usage of "cast" is a little antiquated now but well understood through fixed terms like "the die is cast" and "casting pearly before swine". Hatting this as it's both wrong and beside the point. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about recounting in Florida in 2000

Is it true that each county in Florida in 2000 only had one canvassing board for the entire county--composed of just three people--with this canvassing board being responsible for conducting manual recounts in the Florida county that it was operating in?

At the very least, this is what another Wikipedia user's comments right here suggest, no? Futurist110 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask that user directly what they meant. We are not mind readers. RudolfRed (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. I am simply asking here just to make sure that this person's information is indeed correct. Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is right. I don't know if the 3 person board had to personally examine every ballot. I think the ballots were counted by ordinary election clerks in front of observers representing the candidates. The idea was that if a ballot obviously properly marked Bush or Gore, the observers would nod and the ballot would get counted that way. If there was some problem with the ballot like a stray pencil mark, either or both of the observers could object to it being counted, and then the ballot would go to the 3-person canvassing board which could do a majority vote, and maybe after that, the board's decision was potentially contestable in court. There were a lot of spurious objections early on, but then after some court decisions the process went efficiently. Did you ever look at Toobin's book about the recount? You probably should, given your continued interest in the topic. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many ordinary election clerks were there doing this? Also, to clarify--in manual recounts, ordinary election clerks manually re-examined all of the ballots in their counties, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably best off looking at news reports from the time, like in the Palm Beach Post which may have online archives. Also, Toobin's book. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]