Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 9

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.

August 9

Permanent budget bills

Why can't loss of supply be prevented by having budget bills state that they apply not just to the coming year, but to every year until a new budget act supercedes them? NeonMerlin 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Witholding of supply is one of the few checks and balances available to an opposition that has the numbers in the upper house. If supply were automatic, a government could theoretically do all manner of reprehensible things short of being downright unconstitutional, and get away with them, because they would have unfettered access to the money. That said, it's normal convention for supply to be granted, and any issues an opposition may have are addressed in other ways.

That didn't happen in Australia in 1975. The Opposition-controlled Senate deferred consideration of supply until the government acceded to its wishes (either resign or call a general election). They took this stance because of what they considered to be certain "reprehensible circumstances" that the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam had brought about. Whitlam refused to comply, on the principles that (a) his supply had not been formally rejected, just delayed, and (b) as PM, he and he alone had the right to advise the Governor-General to call an election, and he would not be bullied into it. The stand-off dragged on from August (when the supply bills were introduced into the parliament) till November, by which time Whitlam had no option but to investigate non-parliamentary ways of accessing funds to carry on the business of government. On 11 November, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr asked Whitlam one final time if he were prepared to call an election. Whitlam said the best he would do was call a half-Senate election, which was due to be called anyway as a constitutional requirement. Kerr broke the impasse by withdrawing Whitlam's commission as PM, and he (Kerr) has been reviled by Labor supporters ever since. He added insult to injury (as Labor supporters see it) by installing as caretaker PM not Whitlam, whose party still had the confidence of the lower house, but the Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser, whose coalition did not. This was immediately tested, and Fraser's government, as expected, lost a vote of confidence (Fraser personally did not attend the vote). But by the time the Speaker called on Kerr to tell him this and request him to invite Whitlam to form a new government, Kerr had already dissolved the parliament on Fraser's advice, advice he had been required to provide as a condition of his being made caretaker PM in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can have a perpetual budget anyway. Conditions change every year. That's true in business as well as government. It's tough enough to predict what will happen in the next year, let alone the next decade. And you still have to make adjustments for changing conditions. I doubt the U.S. budget for 2001 had anything about going to war in Afghanistan, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but last year's budget would be better than nothing. If you can't get your new budget passed, you stick with the old one and make do. I think that's what the OP was suggesting. I think the main reason it doesn't happen is because it would require the support of the people that vote on budgets and why would they give away one of their most important powers? --Tango (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise occurs to me: absent new legislation, the budget is carried over but decreases by 1/5 each year. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you decrease a budget? A budget isn't a number, it's a complicated document detailing various sources of revenue and various types of expenditure. You can't just scale everything by 1/5, it wouldn't work. Anyway, why would it be a good thing? The power to withhold supply is usually considered beneficial for a country. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious way to reduce (not decrease) the budget by 20% is with across-the-board cuts. Each and every item in the budget is allocated 80% of the previous year’s funds. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Including cutting revenue by 20%? I think not. A budget is not just about what a government intends to spend, but also about what money they plan to collect by way of taxes, charges, asset sales, interest, ... You can't just cut all expenditure items without doing something with revenue. If you do, you build up huge surpluses, at the expense of the lives of citizens who were previously supported by social welfare programs but are now going to be less supported or not supported at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't just spend less on everything, you have to pay what each item costs or get rid of the item. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Granville Roland Fortescue

Granville Roland Fortescue's article says, Fortescue was the stepson of U.S. Congressman Robert Roosevelt, but the Robert Roosevelt article says, The two children born out of wedlock to Minnie O'Shea Fortescue were Kenyon Fortescue and Granville Roland Fortescue.. Which is correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the Robert Roosevelt article suggests that both are correct, and I see no contradiction. His biological parenthood of the two was evidently not publicly acknowledged during his first marriage, so he could not then be legally recognised as their father. On his subsequent marriage to their mother, he could then have publicly acknowledged them as his children, but evidently chose not to do so, thus avoiding any retrospective tarnishing of his first marriage and dead wife's memory, and instead adopted them. In that era it would have been considered important to maintain an officially believable respectability even though everyone really understood the true circumstances. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a friend whose first child was born out of wedlock circa 1977. After marrying the mother, he learned to his surprise that the child's birth certificate listed no father; so he adopted her. —Tamfang (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopted the daughter, that is, not the wife. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion, Succession and Monarchy

Was there ever a monarchy in which religion or different sects of a religion wasn't a factor in succeeding to that monarchy's throne? The British monarchy doesn't allow Catholics, but what would happen if in the last year of her reign Queen Elizabeth II converted to Catholism, Eastern Orthodoxy or even a non Christian religion. Would they make her abdicate?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re your second question, I don't think Wikipedia is in a position to predict such hypotheticals authoritatively, but for what it's worth, my personal opinion (speaking as a middle-aged Brit) is that Parliament would hurriedly abolish the legislation against having a Catholic monarch if such a circumstance arose. There was a pragmatic reason for its original introduction centuries ago which has long since passed away, and very few today would wish to uphold it, but Parliament tends not to spend its time (which is in sufficiently short supply that some planned legislation fails to get through) on such legal fossils unless and until it becomes necessary.

As for HM becoming some other variety of non-Anglican or non-Christian, the main conflict would be with the monarch's ex-officio role as nominal head of the Anglican church. The most likely outcome there (again, in my personal opinion) would be for the Anglican church to be disestablished, which already has some support within it as well as outside it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Britain generally solves constitutional issues based on precedent, so it is very difficult to know how unprecedented issues would be dealt with. What happens would depend on all the details on the situation. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the precise wording of the law excluding Catholics from the monarchy, but it is perhaps interesting to note that Anglicans are Catholic, though not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, because they retain the Apostolic Succession. Wikiant (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement 1701 has one clause requiring that those taking the throne be "protestants" and another specifically excluding anyone who "is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist". Algebraist 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IANAL but my reading is that it's not enough to not be a Catholic or married to one at the time of accession to the throne, but a monarch may never become one or marry one, otherwise they're automatically ineligible to remain monarch. The tricky question is, given that "the king never dies", at what precise moment would she cease to be queen? Would it be the moment of her baptism as a Roman Catholic? And who would know that apart from the Queen herself, the officiating priest, and any witnesses - and what if she did not reveal who those other people were, or she did but they refused to divulge exactly when it occurrred? I mean, to take any action, it would have to be based on more than the Queen saying "Oh, by the way, Prime Minister, I became a Roman Catholic last week" at one of her weekly meetings with the PM. He would require documentary proof. Or maybe he'd prefer to pretend he just didn't hear her say that. Much more likely is that she'd advise him she was thinking of doing this, and then the machinery of government would quickly get cranked up to dissuade her from this colossally foolish path. But if she went through with it, maybe they'd pass an act deeming her to have rendered herself ineligible at some unspecified time, and the moment of Royal Assent would be when she ceases. Or maybe they'd change the law letting her stay on the throne. But either way, it's completely unprecedented, it would a God-almighty constitutional headache, and I hope for their sake it never happens. I've heard that her grandmother Queen Mary converted to Catholicism on her death bed, but that had no ramifications because George V was long dead and it did not affect the succession of any of her children or their descendants. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the result would be a "constitutional crisis". The monarch is expected to obey the law. If the monarch cannot live up to the law, they are expected to resign - as Edward did in the 1930s. If the monarch refused to step aside, it could be big trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen Mary? Born and brought up in the UK? that pillar of suitability? NBL! Reports of deathbed conversions so rarely receive first-person denial.--Wetman (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say I'd heard it, not read it. My impeccable source for this information is my usual impeccable source, my mother, who seems to know things we ordinary mortals don't. And she's hardly ever wrong. But she might be on this occasion; or maybe we'll never know for sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if true (and it's not mentioned in the article), it doesn't matter, because (1) she was not the ruler of England and hence not the head of the Anglican Church; and (2) she was near death in any case. For all we know, maybe she did it as a practical joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody's the ruler of England per se, but I know what you're getting at. It also occurred to me that if Prince Phillip were to convert to Catholicism, that would disqualify the Queen from remaining on the throne. He could do it after a domestic argument, just to get back at her. What a weird law, stripping a monarch of their right to reign because of the actions of others, over which even the monarch has no control. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would Phillip's religion figure into it either? He is not in the line of succession and cannot be the head of the Anglican Church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

He's married to the Queen. Note above where Algebraist quotes the Act of Settlement 1701 "... or shall marry a Papist". I doubt, however, that Phillip's conversion would be an absolute bar to Elizabeth's continued reign. A Sovereign divorcing their spouse who was politically inconvenient was, after all, part of what precipitated the whole Catholic/Anglican split in the first place. Even if the Parliament didn't change the law to allow the Queen to be married to a Catholic, I'd guess they would allow them to divorce. -- 128.104.112.100 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip is in the line of succession, but far far away from his son, and would lose his place if he converted. However, the Queen would not be automatically deposed by his conversion; the Act says "or shall marry a Papist ", not "or shall be married to a Papist", which means that the Queen is securely on the throne because she married a a non-Papist (i.e. Philip was not a Papist when she married him). When the Duchess of Kent converted to RC, the Duke kept his place in the line. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about this, although I acknowledge the chance of it ever happening and being tested is very remote. I don't think we can necessarily bring 21st century understandings of what words in legislation mean to laws that were written 4 centuries earlier. The monarch can never have been or become a Catholic, and they cannot marry a person who is a Catholic at the time of the marriage. That much would be agreed by all sides. But surely the intent was that the spouse should not only not be a Catholic at the time of the marriage, but should also - like the monarch - never become one (while still married to the monarch). Otherwise, what would there be to prevent the following scenario: The heir apparent (or an unmarried monarch) gets engaged to someone who, before the marriage, expresses a desire to become a Catholic. All the heir apparent has to say is "Oh, that's nice, dear; just put it off till after the wedding, and it will be fine". That would be an absolute mockery of the purpose of the legislation (atrociously bigoted as it is). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In the extremely remote chance that this would happen, presumably Parliament would come up with a solution. I would say there's no chance that ERII or Charles or any of those folks are going to convert. There's a theoretical chance that a descendant in the royal line might. But isn't it true that the royals are raised with a strong sense of duty? They are, in some sense, slaves to their own legacy. There are things they really don't have a choice about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdented reply to JackofOz's first comment) An Anglican would not be baptised again to become a (Roman) Catholic. Initially, they'd just have to tell a priest they were becoming Catholic, and start attending Mass. Steps on the path thereafter would include first communion and confirmation. (Unlike baptism, confirmation is done on a denominational basis.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This may become a real-life constitutional issue when Charles succeeds to the throne. A few years ago he expressed a desire for a "multi-faith coronation" [1] and last year he said that he intends to be "defender of faiths" rather than "defender of the faith" [2]. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's called being a good politician. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Marginal valuation

Could anyone please provide me with a reasonable definition of the economic term "marginal valuation", preferably from a respected encyclopedia/lexicon of economics in English? Thank you. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 14:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Marginalism and Marginal value. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, DOR. I stuck to "valuation" and didn't think of searching for "value" instead. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 12:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Independence and Recognition of Countries

Why is it that some countries, such as East Timor, declare independence and get recognition from the rest of the world, while others like Kosovo declare their independence but struggle to gain recognition from several countries? In essence, what causes some declarations of independence to be recognized by countries around the world, but other declarations of independence to not? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Serbia, from whence Kosovo is seeking independence, has very powerful natural, historical allies while Indonesia does not. It is quite complicated, but it basically boils down to the fact that there are less powerful countries that object to East Timor than to Kosovo. --Jayron32 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be the practical answer, but there are also rules in international law for when a country can be recognised as independent. If these terms are not met, another country sometimes recognises a country in spite of this, to make a political point (like when many Arab states has recognised Palestine as independent, even if its territory is not de facto independent from Israel). To be recognised, international law says a country should:

• Have a territory
• Have a population living on that territory
• Have a government which is in control of that country and the ability to uphold diplomatic relations with at least some other country.

E.G. (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Of course, the problem comes that it is quite easy for any sizable population to meet all three of these conditions. Any dedicated group of seperatists could secure a real territory, elect leaders, and control the people on that territory. The question becomes when one group of seperatists are legitimate freedom fighters, and another group are simply criminals and vandals. It boils down to who supports one group versus another. After all, we are unlikely to see a recognized, independent Kurdistan, and yet the Kurds essentially run an autonomous state within Iraq. The ONLY thing lacking from calling Kurdistan an independent state is international recognition; as one could easily make the case that it meets all three of your requirements. --Jayron32 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Historically this has been incredibly arbitrary, a simple matter of whose interests a sovereign state aligns with. During the Cold War it was terribly cynical. The US, for example, would side with colonial or dictatorial interests if it seemed like it would be a thorn in the USSR's side (or the British or the French were in support of it, same difference), but when it came to the countries the USSR was itself dominating, it would turn around and pretend to care about the right to self-determination. There is no consistency to it whatsoever, other than crass political power. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One difference between East Timor and Kosovo is that in the case of East Timor the former dominating power (Indonesia) has formally given its OK, whereas that's not the case with the former dominating power of Kosovo (i.e. Serbia). AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

E.G., the rules will always bend to power. Otherwise, Taiwan would be widely accepted as an independent country, as it meets all of your criteria. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnonMoos, and I think Jayron's description above is a bit faulty. Indonesia certainly has strong political, diplomatic and economic allies. In fact, the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor was done with implicit approval from the United States. However, as Indonesia agreed (at a very specific point in the political history of the country, today Indonesian politicians like Megawati are saying this was a wrong move) to allow E Timor to chose independence. The de facto separation of Kosovo from the rest of Serbia (which was the precondition for the independence declaration) was acheived through a NATO military campaign and for quite obvious reasons the Serbian government is extremly reluctant to approve any settlement that legimitizes this occupation. --Soman (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Taiwan and Iraqi Kurdistan will not be recognised as independent states, simply because they have not declared themselves to be independent. I also did not say in my answer that rules of power are to be left out of the question, I just stated that they are not all that are taken in consideration it these cases. E.G. (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When did Japan declare independence? Or, Thailand? How many countries have to recognize a state before you’ll grant it that same status? Taiwan qualifies, regardless of the out-dated policies practiced elsewhere. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the legal theory, see Declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood. In practice, UN membership is a very strong indication that an entity is a state; lack of UN membership usually indicates it isn't.

The logic behind this goes something like this: international law is established by treaties and the practice of nations. If a putative state is recognised as one by the UN, that means it is seen as one by the will of the international community of nations. This means that customary international law accepts that this is a state.

Of course, as indicated by the two articles linked above, opinions vary wildly on this point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are different, seemingly disparate political views (seemingly) correlated?

(I'll preface that I'm English, and my experience of the rest of the world is rather limited, though I observe the same elsewhere in my limited opportunities to do so.)

For instance, why are fiscal and social conservatism correlated? It's difficult to see what they have in common. And more germanely, why do labels like "conservative" and "liberal" exist? It seem absurd that people might agree on so many so unrelated issues such that these labels could evolve to have any meaning at all?

I notice different meanings to the labels in the USA, though not very different. And regardless, the same sort of identification still seems to exist. Why? --Leon (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question hinges on whether one believes that power belongs to individuals and that individuals may, from time to time, grant some of their power to the state, or that power belongs to the collective and that the collective may, from time to time, grant some of its power to individuals. In the US, economic conservatism (generally) reflects the belief that power resides in individuals (that is, individuals are better able to make economic decisions than is the government). Social conservatism, in contradiction, reflects the belief that power resides in the collective (that is, the government is better able to make social decisions that are individuals). In general terms, Republicans tend to be "power from above" when it comes to social issues and "power from below" when it comes to economic issues. Democrats tend to be the reverse. Libertarians tend to be "power from below" in both economic and social issues. Wikiant (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Was this intended to illuminate, or merely to paraphrase the question? —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm pretty sure you could base a career in Political Science on this topic, so I'll give my two cents briefly. Conservatism is essentially the belief in things as-is, supporting minimal change. Hence, I don't see a big divide between fiscal and social conservatism. Not that the two are inherently related, but that a desire for "traditional" status is wide-reaching. A more cynical response is that in order to effect social change, you need money; if you're a social conservative, you're likely to support fiscal conservatism as an avenue to avoid societal change.

As for the terms liberal and conservative, at least in America they rarely mean what they used to, having essentially become epithets for left-wing and right-wing individuals. George W. Bush was consistently called a conservative, but, in the classic sense of the word, didn't qualify due to his desire for increased spending and larger government influence. Our President Reagan is often seen as the paragon of American conservative views, and yet President Obama, routinely called a "liberal," identifies very strongly with Reagan, as did President Clinton. As I said, the terms are basically just used as slurs by whomever is pandering to their voting bloc/viewership. The massively increased polarization of the political parties and these terms is, I feel, indicative of a lot of the issues associated with a two-party system. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of theories about this. They range from "it's totally historically contingent and doesn't correlate at a base level, just a social level" to the "they necessarily and logically complement each other in totally inseparable ways." The truth is probably somewhere in between, as with most things. One interesting approach is by the linguist George Lakoff in his book Moral Politics — the article gives the basics of the argument. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The book looks interesting based on various blog comments, thanks.--Leon (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the glossary of his satirical history of the United States, Richard Armour defined "conservative" as "a man who saves his money (even before women and children)". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...--Leon (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A likely answer is money and power. If you are rich and powerful, you are likely to be fiscally conservative, because you don't like paying lots of taxes. And you are likely to be socially conservative, because any changes in social rules (allowing abortion, women's rights, rights for black people and so on) are likely to undermine the existing power structure and so hurt you, too. On the other hand if you are poor, you like higher taxes because you pay little anyway and much of the tax money benefits you throuh welfare programs etc. At the same time, you are often socially oppressed too, so you may like social reforms that give more power (or "equality") to whatever social group you belong to. --Chl (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this isn't supposed to be a debating forum, and you're trying to help (for which I am grateful), I think that's oversimplifying. Mightn't rich people want to take drugs also?! Is it really impossible to change some things without overthrowing the order entirely?--Leon (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a silly simplification. The poor don't like to be taxed, that's an obvious fact. (Nobody actually likes to be taxed. When you don't have a lot of money to begin with, getting taxed has a much heavier effect on your well-being than if you are swimming in it and can't buy that extra car.) Social issues correlate with a lot of things; having money is not one of them. (Hence a lot of discussion about the idiocy of Republicans alienating Latino voters who are socially and economically conservative, even though they are a minority and comparatively poor.) There are a lot of factors that go into who cares about social issues; being a minority and being poor are not prerequisites in the slightest (if they were, then probably nothing would ever be done on them, because almost everyone in power is white and rich and has been for ages.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The poor ideally benefit from re-distribution of wealth through taxes, the rich inevitably lose. Social issues means not only race and gender equality, but also free healthcare and education, and one's attitudes toward this certainly correlate with having money. And while many rich people may not personally believe in God and may like to take drugs, it is still in their own best interests to officially emphasize the traditionalist vs "liberal" divide rather than the rich vs poor divide. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, it is very difficult to condense something as wide ranging as politics into a series of very basic categories. The political parties are normally aligned to certain 'types' of politics, but they will have contradictory actions whilst still being seen as one thing. This creates a difference between the 'theory' of what something is and the practice of what the parties do (and therefore what people think of X as). The parties constantly change and will move across the political spectrum over time. A comparison of the conservative party of the 60s will be hugely different to that of the 80s and 90s. Similarly with the Labour and Liberal Democrats. Ultimately these parties are rooted in a reasonably basic theory/reason but in practice they will be depart from this hugely dependent on prevailing opinion, practility, etc. etc. As others note the world of political theory is dense enough to provide a lifetime of studying and reading. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

In the USA, there has been an observable pattern since about the election of 1980 (Reagan's first term) in which the Republican party gains election victories by appealing to rural/Southern/religious voters on social issues, but when the Republicans are in power, then big business and "country-club Republicans" seem to have greater influence over most areas of government policy than social-issues activists do, and economic policies are enacted which favor the wealthy and upper-class far more than they do most social issues voters. Some claim that the country-club Republicans pretty much nakedly exploit the values voters, only tossing them a few token enactments on social issues, while pursuing economic policies which are greatly to the economic disadvantage of most of them. For example, there has still been no really serious effort to get an anti-abortion constitutional amendment passed in Congress (to be sent to the states for ratification), despite many decades of campaign promises, but tax policies have been radically reshaped to favor the top few percent. This whole issue was prominently discussed in the 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas?... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's consistent if you define conservative as opposing change and liberal as supporting change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Today, conservatives are seen as advocating free-market capitalism, and liberals redistribution of wealth through taxation and intervention in the market. 150 years or so ago in England, and conservatives were the ones supporting the tax-funded privileges of the landowning aristocracy and the established church, and the liberals were the free-market capitalists. In the USSR shortly before it ended, the conservatives were the hardline, die-hard communists, and the liberals the free-market capitalists. Who's liberal and who's conservative depends on what the status quo is and what the proposed alternatives are. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the terms are not inherently opposites. In a truly liberal world, conservatives would be liberal. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The original question was "why are fiscal and social conservatism correlated". The answer is, to put it plainly, they aren't always correlated. It's a very recent thing and it's mostly an American thing that doesn't make much sense in the rest of the world: most other countries remember the old, almost mediaeval concept of an conservative, authoritarian state that maintains order both in the society and in the economy and takes care of the worthy poor; even the concepts of "fiscal conservative" and "fiscal liberal" are very new and still sound odd outside of the US and Britain. Even as the mainstream conservative parties of Europe are becoming "fiscal conservatives" in the American sense, new populist right-wing parties spring up to maintain the economic interventionism position. In the past, as Nicknack009 observed, it was precisely the opposite to the American pattern: social conservatives wanted state interference in the economy, while social liberals were in favour of laissez-faire in the economy. Briefly, my explanation for the recent reversal of positions is: back when the state was undemocratic and authoritarian, and the economy was eroding the authoritarian social system, the right naturally trusted the state and the left trusted the economy. Now that the state is largely democratic, while the economy is the domain of unaccountable big business, the mainstream right naturally relies on the economy, and the left relies on the state. Essentially, one side is drawn to whatever domain has the most inequality and hierarchy, and the other to whatever domain has the most equality.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the traditional idea of conservative versus liberal dichotomy is disputed by some people, particularly by libertarians who who claim that this is overly simplistic way of looking at things. They propose a two dimensional chart called the Nolan chart. According to [3], I scored 80% on personal freedom and 100% on economic freedom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's one high score! Don't worry, the libertarian perspective is widely propagated on the Internet and I think both the OP and myself are informed about it. It's not really that much more complex than the right-left dichothomy, though: it replaces it with an equally simple dichothomy between freedom (personal and economic) and slavery (personal and economic), where the only two logical and consistent alternatives to choose between happen to be Libertarianism and Adolf Hitler himself, and everybody else is just confused. The leftist perspective is, of course, that libertarianism's emphasis on freedom from government and society is simply a way of opposing any form of collective democratic action of solidarity, which is necessary to ensure justice and equality. This in turn means letting the strong and rich have their way and dominate the weak and poor. As a result, Libertarians are always the allies of Republicans in practical politics.

Now, back to history. Unlike the US, Europe has long had a distinction between traditionalists (often known as "conservatives") and free-person+free-market people (often known as "liberals"). Originally, there was little else but these two groups: the former were seen as "the Right" and the latter as "the Left". As socialism emerged and grew stronger, it came to be viewed as the real "Left", while the "liberals" came to seem more moderate, something intermediate between the real Right (the "conservatives") and the Left - like the Left, they were for progress and popular sovereignty, but didn't want as radical changes as the Left did. At some point, both "conservatives" and "liberals" came to be viewed as "Right" - let's call them "T-Right" and "F-Right", respectively. Since the 1970s, however, the F-Right has been growing stronger and more radicalized (let's call this version the FF-Right); it has become more prominent than the T-Right and has assimilated it and displaced it to some extent. The US Libertarians are a particularly radical, even utopian form of this FF-Right, but most of the FF-Right remains united with the T-Right in the US Republican Party. The reason why the two types of Right never properly split in the US may be partly that during the early part of its history, when Europe was torn in conflicts between "conservatives" and "liberals", the US was too advanced to have such party divisions at all (the only exception was the slavery issue). Now, American T-Right traditionalism emerged with a more individualistic, "cowboy" flavour than the classic European traditionalisms, so it's easier to combine with the FF-Right ideology than they are. It's an efficient strategy; a clearer split into three parties - T-Right (religious Republicans), F-Right (Libertarians and right-wing Democrats) and Left (leftist Democrats and Ralph Nader) could work as well, but I suspect that it would make the system less stable, predictable and comfortable for those involved.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy for a bit, and haven't had time to respond, but thanks for all your answers! I'll investigate some of the literature that you've recommended.

What novel was this?

I remember reading a novel during elementary school where a child is given up for adoption by his single mother after she marries another man, and the child later makes a failed attempt to reconnect with his biological mother (even sending some money in the process) and as such has to adapt to his adoptive family. What was the title of this novel? 128.2.247.42 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A generic theme, unidentifiable without some added specifics. But what a very advanced elementary school.--Wetman (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add some more. I believe there was some mention of a town in New York in there (where this child's biological mother and new husband eventually settled). I believe the biological mother wrote a letter explaining her initial decision, and later in the book, the child writes back to the mother (sending money in this letter), and the mother writes another letter rejecting the child's request to reunite with her. (Note: I'm the same person as above, just posting from a different computer on campus) 128.2.68.42 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sales of the Bible versus sales of the Qur'an

Does anyone have any reliable sources for the number of sales for the Bible versus the Qur'an? Playing Trivial Pursuits last night (UK version) it stated that the Bible was the most widely sold book in the world, whereas my (Muslim) partner asserted that the Qur'an held that position. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See List of best-selling books.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures in that article refer to all editions and translations of the Bible. It is likely that the Quran in Arabic outsells any particular translation of the Bible. —D. Monack ^talk 03:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's extremely unlikely. The Quran has sold only about 800 million total ever since it was written according to that list whereas the Bible sells 100 million every year and a large proportion of those are in English. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but keep in mind that there are hundreds of English translations of the Bible and the popular favorite has changed many times. —D. Monack ^talk 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if some of the debate arises from the contrasting nature of scripture between Christianity and Islam. Most Muslims seem to believe that the Qur'an isn't the Qur'an if it's not in Arabic. Most Christians, on the other hand, have no problem accepting translations of the Bible as theologically equivalent to the original Hebrew and Greek. As a result, we may be comparing sales figures in one language to sales in hundreds of languages -- the sale of an English translation of the Qur'an, which is not considered to actually be the Qur'an, may well not be counted on our lists as a sale of the Qur'an. I would certainly expect that there have been more original-language sales of the Qur'an than of the Bible. — Lomn 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And even if the translations of the Qur'an are included in the lists, they still wouldn't count as the Qur'an to Muslim believers and hence wouldn't normally be bought by them, while the translations of the Bible are bought by Christian believers. So we are "comparing sales figures in one language to sales in hundreds of languages" no matter what. In principle, I don't see why this should affect the totals. I guess it's more about the difference between the numbers of adherents of the two religions, their economic ability to purchase books, and the different degree of emphasis on individual study of the respective scripture.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You also cannot ignore literacy rate, which is generally not great in some majority Islamic countries. Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, most Muslims are not Arabs and don't speak much Arabic. Islam discourages translation, so these Muslims are not likely to buy a Quran. —D. Monack ^talk 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't all Muslims expected to learn at least some Arabic in order to be able to study the Qur'an? --Tango (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on Islam, but I can say that the difference between what is expected ideally and the actual reality tends to be incredibly huge in traditional religious practice. Taking everything seriously, literally and consistently is a rather recent luxury (in Christianity, Protestantism set this trend and has sometimes carried it to the absurd). Of course far from all Muslims are even literate, let alone having a decent understanding of Arabic (one Turk, who certainly identified as a Muslim, admitted to me, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the only Arabic word he understood was "Allah"). Requirements on lower-class Christians' dogmatic adequacy were also incredibly lax before Early Modernity. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the ethos of "everyone needs to read the holy book" is something of a Protestant thing, and though it has definitely been spreading to other religions for some time isn't neccessarily as strong in other religions. Thus in traditional Islam, again as I understand it, most people would learn important verses that needed to be recited, but actual Qur'anic study was the preserve of Islamic scholars, not something that everyone did. That's definitely changing, but I suspect it might still impact Qur'anic sales. (The other thing that occurs to me, incidentally, is that it would probably be more difficult to work out the number of Qur'ans being sold than Bibles) Furius (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-hearers of information

I remember reading in a history book that some guy on an island was still fighting WWII a number of months or years after V-J Day. I couldn't find his name by a simple search, so does anyone know who this was?

This got me to thinking, in the age of communication with billions of people on the planet, is it possible that somewhere out there, there's at least one person who hasn't heard of 9-11? (for the sake of argument, we'll overlook the pockets of indigenous people in Africa or South America who have never even had civilized contact.) Or if that's not possible, then who would the very last person have been to have found out about 9-11, how long did the news take to trickle to that person, and what was the circumstances?

It seems this would make for some interesting scientific research--tracking the flow of information all the way to the most protected persons on the planet, wouldn't it? There should be a name for this phenomenon, if it really exists. 76.123.145.220 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On your first question: there are a number of such people, but you're probably thinking of Hiroo Onoda. Algebraist 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He didn't surrender till 1974, the world needs more people like him.

Also Teruo Nakamura Shoichi Yokoi and others, see Japanese holdout 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting about specific news events, let's go to something more fundamental: How many people in the world don't know the earth is round? I bet it's a surprisingly large number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Boko Haram. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but most of them have probably just never thought about it, rather than thinking it is flat. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How many Americans have probably never heard of the 2005 London bombings? Whatever percentage that is (which is probably higher than one wants to know), it is probably similar elsewhere. There are a lot of people who just keep their eyes no higher than their everyday life. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think most Americans have heard of the 2005 London bombings. Now, how many remember, that's a different story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget about the flat Earth. I wonder how many people are not aware that pregnancy is a result of a sexual intercourse. Judging by the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, that must be an awful lot. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Dan Savage, lots and lots and lots of people are in the dark about issues of sex and pregnancy. America has the Christian right and its utterly failed abstinence education programme to thank for that. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that problem stems from lack of information. More likely because teenagers are very poor at making accurate risk assessments. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience it is worse than just bad risk assessments. Many teens live in a weird, irrational bubble where they think that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex, and things of that nature. The inability to talk about these issues in an open way compounds and increases the problem. I suspect the internet does some good in that regard, though, as it makes it a lot easier to get factual information anonymously. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's even more basic than that. It's the fact that many teens in countless generations have felt like they were immortal and that nothing could go wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this, there are more than a hundred tribes in the world that have no or very limited contact with the outside world.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We have politicians that are like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you make 9-11 out to be such a major deal with dire consequences to the survival of humanity. As big a deal as it was, it would take something much bigger to reach the remotest and rural-est communinities of the globe; there are many subsistence communities that live far away from any technology, who only speak to travelers who happen to come there way -- most of these people usually have had civilized contact but choose to remain in their ethnic communities. These communities have survived thousands of years without outside assistance, and although they may be aware of civilization and cities - and even deal with these people - they choose to keep their culture and stay in their homelands. It would take something like the end of the world or a major epidemic (much more major than SARS, swine-flu, or AIDS) or something like the end of the world to ensure that these communities get such a message from travelers. So I guess to answer your question in this age of communication, there are still many people who, although very cut off, would not really understand or perhaps even care about 9-11. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus#Family life and descendants

Article says Aemilius divorced Papiria Masonis (his first wife) around 183-182 BC; however (don't you just hate that) the divorce occurred while his younger son was still a baby. The younger son would have to be Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (a.k.a. Scipio, the younger); however (here we go again) supposedly he was born in 185 BC. At the age of 17 years old he was by his father's side at the Battle of Pydna (168 BC). His real father being Aemilius, however he was adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio P.f. P.n. Africanus, a son of Scipio Africanus; therefore he ultimately belonged to Cornelius. The divorce of Aemilius then had to be in the year 185 BC, not 183-182 BC as the article now says. Which is correct, the divorce date (183 BC) or Scipio's (minor) birth date of 185 BC?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Scipio was born in 185BC he would have been ~2years in 183BC, by 168BC he would have been ~17 years. I don't see why the divorce of Aemilius has to be in 185BC from the info you've given or what the adoption has to do with the dates? Even taking into account convoluted pre/post divorce or extra-marital activities I can't seee the contradiction. (ignore this if someone else sees the obvious).83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think 83.100.250.79 is forgetting that years BC are counted backwards; that is, 185 BC is earlier than 168 BC. // BL \\ (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says, He divorced his wife while his younger son was still a baby which I take being under one year of age (assumption on my part). Otherwise there would probably be wording like, He divorced his wife while his younger son was a young boy. Adoption has nothing to do with the dates, only has to do with the fact he ultimately belonged to Cornelius. Any sources as to Scipio's (minor) birth date or the divorce date?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure 2-3 years still counts as a baby.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So, bottomline: Any sources as to Scipio's (minor) birth date or the divorce date?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia britannica puts Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (Numantinus) [4] date of birth as 185/4 BC It's unlikely that they're not using a reputable historical source.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch's Parallel Lives is the obvious source for the life of Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus (there are links to the text via the book article) - unfortunately no direct mention of the date of the divorce - must be a more obscure reference.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So then until we can get a good source of either Scipio's (minor) birth date or the divorce date, you do in fact agree then that he was adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio P.f. P.n. Africanus, therefore ultimately belonging to Cornelius. I have a book of Plutarch Lives in front of me and he doesn't say.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch definately says Scipio was adopted by the son of Scipio Africanus - (who had two sons one called Publius)

"Aemilius, having thus put away Papiria, married a second wife, by whom he had two sons, whom he brought up in his own house, transferring the two former into the greatest and the most noble families of Rome. The elder was adopted into the house of Fabius Maximus, who was five times consul; the younger by the son of Scipio Africanus, his cousin-german, and was by him named Scipio. [5]

There doesn't seem to be any doubt about the adoption.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, that helps a lot. He definitely belonged to Cornelius. You have been most useful. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)