Miscellaneous desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

August 23

Map number of supporters in Manchester

Hello. Of course, there is no history neither at the national level nor at the international level; Manchester United has a more important tradition. But at the city level, are United supporters more in the majority, or Manchester City supporters? Thanks a lot. 151.37.107.115 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your title, it seems like a mistake to me. Anyway, Sport in Manchester#Football suggests that it's pretty much 50-50. --Viennese Waltz 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.37.107.115 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Hierarchical' question, thanks

Hi Guys. Could someone take away a curiosity for me? I've been wondering for years. Is the figure of the Chief Justice (currently it is John G. Roberts, Jr.), more important or that of the President of the United States? My question arises from the fact that the swearing in of the POTUS, is usually always administered by the Chief Justice himself. Thank you so much. 151.37.107.115 (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, see Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Administration. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has co-equal branches of government. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches are supposed to share power, and none is statutorily more important than the others. See Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. (Politics is messy, so at any one given moment in time, or in one or more domains, some of those branches may exert a practical supremacy over U.S. policy, but that's a different matter than which branch is "hierarchically" more important. Officially, none is). --Jayron 32 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a game of "rock, paper, scissors": the Supreme Court swears in the President, but it's the President who nominates the judges and Congress who confirms them. Congress can impeach the President, but the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial, and so on and so forth. No one branch is superior to the others. --Xuxl (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of effort was put into making the three branches equal to create a well functioning government. The fault that appeared over time was the "power of the purse." Congress can force itself into areas it has no legal control over by restricting or granting funding. Simple example, the President (head of the military) can order military to go somewhere, but Congress can override it by simply refusing to pay for it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, the President can can order military to go attack somewhere, but it's Congress who can declare war on them. Not that anyone bothers to do that any more. --142.112.221.64 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody so far is giving references except to separation of powers, which is importantly not referenced directly in the US Constitution, but an essential part of the US paradigm and national psyche. However, many scholars argue that the balance of the three branches of US government have shifted decidedly in favor of the Executive: Brand 1987 argues this happened most significantly since Nixon, citing key areas in which the Executive can trump the Judicial, such as when the Attorney General declines to defend a Federal law (that the President does not favor) before the Federal courts, or since Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (1984) among others that effectively sanctioned the ability of federal agencies under the Executive branch to engage in "interpretative lawmaking" (per Martin v. OSHRC, cited ibid.). You might also check out Goldgeiger & Saunders (2018) "The Unconstrained Presidency" essay. Something else I found (and haven't read through) with a Google Scholar search are Macey & Richardson 2022 who look at US separation of powers doctrine since its founding. Plenty more in the literature proposes how to fix the current broken state of affairs. One other thing from an international and systems perspective is how voters, in many conditions, tend to dismantle the separation of powers in favor of a stronger executive, per Acemoglu et al 2011. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I, nobody? --Jayron 32 12:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Chopped liver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'll note that until the mid-20th century the US Executive's power was extremely limited, and with Marbury v. Madison (1803) (judicial review) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (federal supremacy) it could perhaps be argued that the nine SCOTUS justices became the most powerful single individuals in the US government (the Chief Justice doesn't have quite that much more power than the rest, unlike the leadership positions in the Legislature), although the Legislative branch by design is supposed to have, arguably, the most effective power as a whole in government. But I can't give an educated opinion, so here's a 2022 article on the history of SOTUS power from the League of Women Voters. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one area where the trilateral checks break down is succession. The Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes president if the vice president can't do the job, but there is no succession role for Supreme Court justices. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another way how this can break down is by the existence of political parties. Two branches of government controlled by the same party no longer keep each other in check. The US election system favours a two party state, so it's almost guaranteed that at least two branches are controlled by the same party. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three branches of government are the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. All democracies use the party system because nothing else works. The majority party in parliament forms the government (the Executive). If it didn't the government would fall on a vote of no confidence. As human beings have limitless capacity to misbehave the judiciary is there to hold the executive to account. Judges are not (in this country) appointed because of their political views but because they are good lawyers, and it is virtually impossible to intimidate them. 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:C4EB:4DFF:2821:2F15 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This country" presumably being the UK. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, even in countries with no two dominant parties, they quickly align into two broad coalitions that end up functionally working as two parties. --Jayron 32 12:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exceptional in a multi-party system to have a governing coalition that has no majority in parliament, or only in one chamber of a bicameral parliament. Opposition parties often vote with the coalition, sometimes to stay attractive to voters who are positioned between them and one of the coalition parties, sometimes to set themselves apart from other opposition parties. And coalition parties sometimes vote against their own government, just to set themselves apart from the other coalition parties. They remain competitors, as coalitions only last until the next elections. Writing this from a country with 16 parties + 5 split-off groups in the second chamber of parliament and 15 parties in the first chamber, with the coalition not having a majority in the latter. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

firefighting with salt water

[1] Link is an article about a Hawaii state water official being criticized for not releasing water for firefighting until it was too late. I can understand fresh water being a scarce resource in Hawaii that has to be allocated carefully. But, Hawaii is surrounded by ocean so there is no shortage of salt water. Can't salt water put out fires? I can understand if it messes up pumps and stuff, but in a big enough emergency maybe that doesn't matter? And is this situation not common enough (coastal commnunities etc.) to justify developing firefighting equipment specially designed to deal with salt water? The whole thing seems a bit odd to me. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you google on "saltwater" and "firefighting" you will find many sources like these [2][3][4] which say that, yes, it "messes up pumps and stuff", and also, adding salt to the environment is hazardous to plants. But other than that, it works, so if seawater is available then there's a decision of whether to use it. And in situations like firefighting on board a ship it may indeed be preferred. --142.112.221.64 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: would using seawater be more "hazardous to plants" than the fire or less? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will probably be more hazardous to the future plants that grow on that spot than the ashes of burnt plants.

Seawater is not generally widely distributed in pipes, and even if it were, those pipes would have to have valves that fire engines could connect to. Salt water will therefore, even on an island, probably only be available less than (say) a hundred metres/yards from the shore, assuming the fire engines are equipped to suck up water from any open source. [Disclaimer: I know nothing about Hawaiian firefighting equipment or water distribution infrastructure, so anyone who does is welcome to correct me.]

It's a dilemma in many first world countries that the Public water supply usually provides only water that has been extensively treated to make it potable, which costs. As a consequence, this valuable source is also used for flushing toilets and other purposes which could use less purified water. However, few people have the resources to recycle their own 'grey' water, and duplicating the public water-supply infrastructure with a parallel system of salt- or otherwise non-potable water would be ruinously expensive. What to do? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many plants require fire as part of their life cycle. The structure of eucalyptus plants encourages fires that deestroy competing plants. Wildfires are a necessary part of many ecosystems and trying to prevent them often leads to more destruuctive fires when they do occur.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but in the context of Hawaii, it doesn't really apply for various reasons. It's strange, for example, that pre-European contact Hawaii didn't have a history of wildfires, according to historians. I say it's strange because they get a lot of lightning, and you would think that would have started plenty of wildfires. Plus, you have the active volcanoes. But my guess as to what they are really getting at, is there wasn't enough time for plants to evolve in relation to fire, as we see so often on the mainland. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai’i is pretty rainy. I'm not surprised their history of wildfires is sparse. Folly Mox (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, and while there is some rain on the leeward, western sides, most of the rain falls on the windward side due to the trade winds. Closer to sea level, Lahaina is in the dry, rain shadow. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the general topic, the BBC have reported today that a Welsh regional Fire & Rescue Service are trialling the use of sewage water taken in tankers from sewage works, treated by UV but not to public water supply standards, to fight countryside fires. This is to avoid depleting the general drinking-water supply by using the usual fire hydrants, which can leave local communities with temporary low pressure, particularly in periods of drought which Wales (Wales!) is beginning to experience due to climate change. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some ecosystems depend on fires, for others it's bad. Some people thought it a good idea to plant eucalyptus trees in parts of Spain and Portugal, where they're not native. Not only were those trees incompatible with local fauna, but they greatly encouraged wildfires too. Conservationists now wish to cut down all those eucalyptus trees and replace them with native, very hard to ignite oak trees. Unfortunately, oaks need a lot of rain and with climate change, Spain gets less of that. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the rain in Spain mainly stay? -- I'll find the exit... 136.54.106.120 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the rain in Spain stays mainly in Galicia.^[5] 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Greece routinely uses seawater for waterbombing. Those flying boats need a large, calm area of water to fill up. Greece has a lack of big lakes or rivers, but the sea is rarely far away and usually calm. The salt is a problem though. Many plants have roots that can survive wildfires, but those roots could still be killed by the salt. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]