Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 15

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 14 Humanities desk archive July 16 >

Initiatives of US President

Pondering this more, have you gone to www.thomas.gov and searched for American Competitive Iniative? If it is not mentioned, the White House and Congressional leaders may have decided to introduce components of the program into a range of bills currently being considered by Congress. You can always telephone the White House and ask about the program.

My understanding is that by intiative President Bush means a program or focused attempt to address an issue. Still, only a member of Congress can introduce legislation. In practical terms, members of the same political party as the President who are members of Congress enjoy linking themselves with the President by introducing such legislation.

legislation.\75Janice 7/24/06

The initiative article doesn't mention this. Even so, I have come to conclude that if the American president wants to make a law, then he can create his proposal, call it an initiative, and send it to Congress for approval. The American Competitiveness Initiative is an example.

Did I get this right?--Patchouli 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The official name is still a bill (law), whether he chooses to name it an initiative, a proposal, a resolution, a Bushitization, or whatever. :-) StuRat 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he can't introduce it to Congress directly, but must get one Senator and one Rep to introduce it into each chamber. This is pretty simple, though, since around half of the Senators and Reps are in the President's party at any given time. Still, if Bush wanted to introduce a particularly stupid bill right before elections, he might find it difficult to find a sponsor. StuRat 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here is my understanding.

--Patchouli 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, that diagram isn't right. The president cannot introduce any "initiative" or proposed law into Congress, as StuRat says. It takes members of Congress to do that. -R. S. Shaw 07:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. The President has exactly the same Constitutional power as any other person who is not a member of the House or the Senate in this regard. There is no Constitutional concept of "initiative"; some states have it, but the Progressive movement wasn't successful in that regard on the federal level. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has yet explain George W. Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. This is a spending program introduced by the executive branch.--Patchouli 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "American Competitiveness Initiative" uses the word "initiative" in a general sense; the word has no specific legal meaning in this usage. It could have been called "American Competitiveness Campaign" or "American Competitiveness Program." The article initiative refers specifically to the procedure whereby citizens can force a referendum on a topic by obtaining a certain number of signatures. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In practice, the Executive branch in the US often sends proposed legislation to Congress for immediate introduction, especially with the large appropriation "budget" bills. They are called "the President's such-and-such bill," or "the President's budget"[1] AnAccount2 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But it still needs to be introduced by a Rep and a Senator. If I could get two sponsors, I could just as easily introduce "StuRat's bill for the legalization of postnatal abortions to be performed on select lawyers, politicians, and auto mechanics". Hmm, that might not pass, so I'd better call it the "We Love America Bill", then nobody would dare vote against it. :=) StuRat 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

plato's symposium

hi,

where can plato's original manusrcipt of the symposium be found?

thanks

bren

Plato's original manuscript is long lost in the mists of time if by Plato, original, and manuscript you mean what the rest of us mean. alteripse 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Wine Denominations

Can anyone tell me the commonly used English terms for the Spanish Denominations "Joven," "Crianza," and "Reserva"?

I feel safe in assuming that the first is "Young" and that the last is "Reserve," but I have no idea what the common usage term would be for "Crianza"

--Diabolic 06:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"A wine in its third year that has matured for at least one year in oak" is a bit long, yes, but it's the best I can find. Some wine websites simply call it "crianza wine". David Sneek 21:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Crianza" might be "child" or "kid". In Spanish they use the word "Nino", but it might come from Portuguese "criança" or perhaps it is a word from South-America and not proper Spanish. Flamarande 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dracula's Chermosese

In Chapter 18 of Bram Stoker's Dracula is the following line (boldface emphasis mine):

In old Greece, in old Rome, he flourish in Germany all over, in France, in India, even in the Chermosese, and in China, so far from us in all ways, there even is he, and the peoples for him at this day.

My question is, where is the "Chermosese"? As can be seen by the redlink, there's no article (yet) for it in Wikipedia, and a Google search failed to turn up anything other than that same quote from Dracula. Considering that all the other places in the sentence are real, I would expect the "Chermosese" to be real as well. —Lowellian (reply) 07:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it be a misspelling of Chersonese? --Rallette 08:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Chersonese it is: a google search of chersonese + dracula returns several instances of the same passage. Someone more knowledgeable than me might know which Chersonese is intended. --Rallette 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should do these searches before posting here instead of as I post. Hm. Anyway, a search for "The Chersonese" brings results that definitely suggest the Malay Peninsula is Stoker's Chersonese.--Rallette 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the quick and informative answer. I've gone ahead and redirected Chermosese to Chersonese in case someone in the future has the same question. —Lowellian (reply) 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Age at childbirth

At what age do adults have their first child? Are there any good statistics of this? I've tried searching 'having children' on wiki, as well as the Family and Child articles, but no related info. Anyone's got any statistics? Jack Daw 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The way you asked the question will skew the age upwards, by eliminating many teen pregnancies from consideration. Also, what age is "adult" ? Is it 18 ? Also, the country, ethnic group, etc., will make a huge difference in the results. StuRat 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The age also changes over time, and by education level, as these charts show: [2]. StuRat 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(Can't resist) Most people are zero at childbirth. (I apologize, but the heading was too provocative.) Geogre 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most... AdamBiswanger1 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeees ... I was born at a very young age should be the opening sentence of someone's autobiography. JackofOz 03:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Googling the phrase suggests that 461 people beat you to it. I think a girl aged five or six gave birth a few weeks ago (in South America?), but I haven't been able to trace the story.--Shantavira 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the phrase to search for is "age of women at childbirth". In 1993, the mean age of U.S. women at childbirth was 28.1 years. Here's my source, from NIH: Abstract of Birth Statistics 1993, P Babb Lynne Jorgensen 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the average age of women at the birth of all their children, not just their first child. StuRat 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is, by all means, never circumsize an infant boy! I was circumsized when I was eight days old, after which I couldn't walk for at least a year! Loomis 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(haw haw). With all due respect to religious traditions, all I have to say is never circumsize anybody ever, except for legitimate medical reasons. Otherwise, it's tantamount to mutilation. JackofOz 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, StuRat, I think you are right -- the 28.1 years is the mean age of women at the birth of any

child, not just their first child. I didn't read carefully enough. Thanks for catching that. --Lynne Jorgensen 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also note that any stats on age of mothers at childbirth will be biased towards youth, since women who have their first child at any early age will be alive for more years afterwards, and thus respond to more surveys after giving birth, than women who are older when they first give birth. The only way to avoid this systematic bias would be to wait until women have died to include their data. This would be more of a reflection of the age of the mother at birth of her first child 50 years ago, however. StuRat 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Similar Wars

Hi there,

I am attempting to find two unrelated wars or battles in which the details of them are as close as possible to being identical. One ancient war and one modern war would be stellar if anything springs to mind. I would be happy to research the details on each war myself; I am simply hoping for a place to start ie. knowing which wars to research. Thanks so much.

                                                                     Daryl

• World War I and Iran-Iraq War are completely unrelated. They were (1) total wars, (2) trench wars, and (3) resulted in millions of deaths.

I know that there are many dissimilarities and I am poised to be beaten over the head with them. For instance, the first lasted 4 years while the second 8 years. --Patchouli 05:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They also both made use of poison gas (which hardly any other wars did). DJ Clayworth 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• The seiges of Dien Bien Phu and Khe Sahn in Vietnam spring to mind;About 20 years apart,someone wrote a book about the first (Hell is a very small place ?),you'd think the Americans would have read it and not done the same thing over again.-hotclaws**==(81.134.77.56 08:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

What a brilliant question. There are some parallels between the (1097 version of the) Siege of Antioch and the Battle of Alesia, in that in both cases a besieging army was trapped between the city they were attacking and an approaching army. About 1,000 years between the two is quite an interval. There are of course many more differences between the two examples than the similarities! --Dweller 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some striking similarities in the various battles over Dunkirk. Geogre 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. revolutionary war is similar to the recent U.S. conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East. In the first the U.S. beat the British using guerilla tactics that were foreign to 'traditional' styles and tactics. The Vietnamese and the various terrorist organizations beat/are beating the U.S. with similar tactical advances. -LambaJan 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two campaigns often compared are Hitler's and Napolean's attack and retreat from Russia. MeltBanana 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A mistake in article about Mohammad.

Here is a mistake I found in the article about Mohammad :

Ibn Ishaq records that Khadijah bore Muhammad five children:

two sons named Al Qasem and Abdullah (who is also called Al Tayeb and Al Taher) and four daughters.

Well that is six children, not five. So if someone knowledgeable could correct it-Nikhilthemacho

I agree that those statements are inconsistent, but how do we know which part is wrong ? StuRat 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. They are Al-Qasim, Zainab, Ruqaiyah, Umm Kulthum, Fatimah and Abdullah. MeltBanana 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Name

the oriigin of the name  TAR HEEL for North Carolinians ?

The article Tar Heel. Geogre 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Posession

What does the phrase "posession is 9/10 of the law" mean or refer to?

Thanks!!! I believe it refers among other ideas to the legal concept called adverse possession. If x owns Blackacre, a tract of land, and does not pay attention to y's possession and use of Blackacre's as Y's land for x number of years, the land now belongs to y. Y may go to court and be awarded title. The law is concerned with land maintenance and society's wishes to see land utilized and developed. Common law doctrine worships land title. It also worships actual possession and economic utilization. Of course, until x years have passed, x, the title holder, may claim his land in court and his right will be recognized. 75Janice at 5:36 UTC

• It means that law is on the side of people that own wealth. It means that it is extremely difficult to legally get money from other people. In other words, a person with wealth has a 90% chance of keeping that wealth.

Only if the possessor has committed a tort, then you might have a chance at recovery for what you have lost on top of perhaps a punitive damage depending on how willfully the tortfeasor behaved.--Patchouli 19:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I always took it to mean that the person who holds an object is assumed to be the rightful owner, unless proof to the contrary is presented (which only happens, say 10% of the time). StuRat 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

StuRat is right, at least according to dictionaries of proverbs and sayings. It means that having control of it is most of what it takes to have it by right. The law is less likely to evict than to award land, for example. See also, "It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission." Geogre 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by "the law is less likely to evict." At least in the United States, the law is that if you don't pay your rent, the landlord has to go to the court to evict you and the law doesn't do anything to hinder your eviction — it is pretty quick and stays on the public records. If it were less likely to evict, no one would pay any rent. It is just that the landlord has to do it legally as opposed to showing up with a shotgun and booting you out unilaterally.

• Rental isn't "possession", the landlord possesses the house, so has most of the rights. StuRat 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The basic point is that in a lawful and civil society it is easier to keep wealth. While where there is no law, physical might and access to a nearest machine gun makes right.

Let me put it more simply, how many people do you personally know have succeeded in obtaining other people's wealth for no legitimate reason? I just can't recall the name of the guy who unsuccessfully sued Bill Gates for money and got embarrassed.--Patchouli 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above statements (except Geogre's and StuRat's) are quite wrong. This isn't an observation on how wealth is distributed or acquired. It's a lawyer's observation of how the law works: A person who possesses an object is presumed by law to be the owner of the object, and whoever else wants it has to go to court and prove that he, the plaintiff, is the real owner. Meeting this burden of proof and coping with all the trouble associated with a lawsuit (court fees, lawyer's fees, time lost etc.) is a significant obstacle, which is why lawyers quip that possession is often quite close to ownership, i.e. "the law". Sandstein 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It means we have a bourgeois set of laws. Pckeffer