Humanities desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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.

June 21

Senate Majority leader and president pro tempore

can i be both Senate Majority leader and president pro tempore at the same time. i ask this because if democrats lose the majority in 2022 and grassley retires,mcconell would be the highest in seniority, in the majority party meaning he would be president pro tempore. but could he do that while also being majority leader? Snowycake (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why not. President pro Tempore is really a ceremonial position and would not interfere with being majority leader. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly maybe but not completely. While the president pro tempore may ~~really~~rarely 07:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC) preside instead letting junior senators do so, AFAIK if they are presiding akin to a lot of parliaments and unlike in the US House of Representatives with their speaker, they're supposed to be largely non-partisan. They may vote but they're not supposed to speak except to make rulings etc [1]. This sort of conflicts with the role of the majority leader to introduce legislation and advocate for their parties POV indeed it's why the presiding officer generally just defers to the majority leader. While the House may treat their equivalent role different, changing the president pro tempore role suddenly for one person seems a little abrupt. I guess they could just never preside. So a bigger issue is probably that they appoint members to a number of committees etc generally in consultation with the majority and minority leaders. [2]. The minority leader part would still work albeit I'm sure it's written like that because the president pro tempore is supposed to be non partisan, but consulting yourself seems a bit weird. While the purpose may be largely ceremonial and I suspect the Supreme Court will just say it's a political question and/or no one actually likely to sue has standing i.e. we're not getting involved in that shit so there's nothing actually preventing it, still I wonder if a party would prefer to avoid it by appointing someone else to be President Pro Tempore should the need arise. The tradition of must be oldest or they keep the role seem to be more reasonable to change than combining two positions which are supposed to consult in statute. Practically I wonder if a party may want to consider whether it's time to move on to someone younger if the issue ever arises so it may be resolved in a different way. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Congress HR 1 and its provisions that are opposed by the Green Party

The current HR1 bill in the US Congress, For the People Act, contains certain provisions that seem unrelated to its overall goal but which are opposed by certain entities such as the Green Party.

For example, under current law a Presidential candidate must raise $5k per state in at least 20 states to qualify for federal matching funds, and HR1 increases that amount 5-fold to $25k per state. Additionally it eliminates the provision for a party to qualify for campaign funding based on winning 5% of the popular vote for president, and that is another aspect that third parties such as the Green Party are opposed to.

I can easily find the Green Party's explanation for why they oppose such things, but what I need help with is finding the justification from the bill's supporters for including such provisions in the first place. They don't really have anything to do with helping the people vote. 03:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Not an expert in US politics by any means, but the $5,000 dollar rule seems to have been introduced in 1976. [3] Whatever the rationale of that was, that amount is "equivalent in purchasing power to about $23,655.10 today". [4] So the upward revision is restoring the status quo. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The_owner_of_all -- From the point of view of many Democrats, the U.S. Green party is basically a tool to elect Republican candidates. For example, in October 2000, Ralph Nader undertook a vigorous series of swing-state political appearances, which were ostensibly for the purpose of helping the Green party get at least somewhat close to the 5% popular vote goal, but which had the effect of harming Al Gore's candidacy and helping to install George W. Bush in power, far more than it did anything to get the Green vote total anywhere near 5%. The Democrats have actually been rather restrained in politically retaliating against the Greens, considering that most Greens are unapologetic and unrepentant about the fact that the main result of their efforts (if they have any political effect at all) is to elect Republicans. Anyway, federal matching funds are semi-irrelevant today -- none of the leading Democratic or GOP presidential candidates has used them for some time... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These things can cut both ways. Ross Perot drew enough votes to "possibly" prevent a Republican from beating Bill Clinton - twice, yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marechaussee

Can you find a site with the complete list of commanders of the Marechaussee, the Paris police until 1791? --Trottapiano (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you're not getting an answer here. It's often hard to find such a specific thing, especially given how far back this would go. You might try again at the reference desk on the French Wikipedia, L'Oracle. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT history in Africa

So I was looking for information on LGBT people in Africa before colonialism and the advent of Abrahamitic religions and found LGBT rights in Africa#History of male homosexuality in Africa and History of homosexuality#Africa. I dunno, is there any kind of summarizing research on pre-Abrahamitic attitudes on LGBT people there, especially in sub-Saharan Africa? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gal-dem has some interesting articles, such as "How Britain’s exported homophobia continues to drive health inequalities amongst LGBTQI communities" (by Annabel Sowemimo). Stonewall offers a bit of an overview in "African sexuality and the legacy of imported homophobia" (by Leah Buckle) with further references. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I am asking about pre-Abrahamitic views. These articles are about the modern views. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe's Boy-Wives and Female Husbands - Studies in African Homosexualitiesis useful here. It not only looks at the famous reports by colonists (and missionaries of 'Abrahamitic views') mentioned in the WP articles you linked, but also at oral history and folklore, as well as homosexuality in African societies of the 20th century who might be contemporary but whose 'views' I would not label as 'Abrahamic'/'Abrahamitic'. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the term "dualism" declined?

Over several millennia throughout history, dualism is the main school of thought but it critically declined, or replaced by monism, which continues to present day. When it became disappeared and who eradicate this thought? The Supermind (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These terms have many meanings, ranging from international law to theories about the relation between the mind and the brain. Which of these meanings are you referring to? --Lambiam 01:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a religious tendency, it's certainly declined -- Mazdakism, Zurvanism, Manichaeism, ascetic Gnosticism, Bogomilism, Catharism etc. are all pretty much gone, leaving behind a few Parsis practising orthodox Zoroastrianism (Mandaeanism in Iraq apparently derived from ascetic Gnosticism, but their religion is not too dualistic in its current form). Adi Shankara apparently solidified non-dualist philosophical interpretations of Hinduism. AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]