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.
If the US Supreme Court did not have the power to overrule the will of a congressional majority, in what other way(s) could the rights of minorities be protected from the majority? Which way would be the best way to protect the rights of minorities?71.227.182.217 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The President could always veto legislation he thought harmful to minorities, assuming Congress didn't have enough votes to override his veto. GreatManTheory 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can require a supermajority to pass legislation. This is already the case in some ways, since the Senate needs 60 votes to end a filibuster, meaning senators representing only 11% of the population can block any legislation. -- Mwalcoff 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mwalcoff, for providing us with cloture on that issue. StuRat 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though many may disagree with this assertion, Constitutional convention exists in the US just as it exists in the UK or Canada. Simply put, there exists an unwritten constraint on the power of Congress, to obey an unwritten set of Constitutional principles. For example, the 19th Amendment guarantees the right to vote regardless of gender. However the proposed Equal Rights Ammendment, (ERA), aimed at expanding equality between the genders, never passed. If, then, as an extreme example, Congress were to pass an Act disallowing females from serving as President, though legal according to the US "Written Constitution", such an Act of Congress just wouldn't fly, despite the fact that Congress has every "legal", "Constitutional" right to do so. Even if the courts had no power of judicial review, the Act would be in violation of America's "unwritten Constitution", and as such, practically speaking, could not survive. Though the idea of Constitutional Convention may be somewhat foreign to Americans, thank goodness, it's alive and well. Loomis 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people also have from the Declaration of Independence the stated right, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This was used by the state government of Kentucky in the 1960's in a failed attempt to simply ignore the very restrictive amendment provisions of their 1890's state constitution. A new constitution was simply put up by the legislature for approval on the basis of the Declaration of Independence. The voters did not approve it. Edison 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is always nonviolent protest, or even violent protest. I believe that is one of the reasons for the right to bear arms. There was a town where the "political machine" was overthrown by armed resistance, in the early or mid 1900s, does anybody recall the name ? StuRat 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite interesting, Edison, that you brought up the American Declaration of Independence, especially the words you quoted. Many would dispute that this document is part of the United States Constitution "proper", but I would argue that it is. My assertion is that a Constitution is not merely a matter of words printed on a page, (though those words definitely have extreme psychological value,) but more accurately, the normative context within which such words are printed. In other words, to understand the true US Constition, you must understand it as a dynamic set of values, a set of values that changes over time, be it in the form of formal Constitutional Amendments, or, I would argue, far more importantly in the form of changing social mores. I would argue that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, though a part of America's "greater" Constitution, is still not definitive of its entire Constitution.
Even the Declaration of Independence exists within an "unwritten" set of normative values. Your quotation is most apposite: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Leaving the gender issue aside for the moment, a literal reading of these words would seem to include all men, regardless of race. The fact that "black men" were obviously not included in the term "men", without understanding its historical context, would lead any contemporary linguist scratching his/her head. Huh? All MEN are created equal...I don't get it...black men are men, what's the deal? Well the obvious answer is that despite the "written" nature of these documents, they cannot be understood outside of their "unwritten" context.
Just as the social mores, and therefore the "unwritten Constitution" of the 18th century did not include black "men" as "men", despite the absence of even the slightest linguistic hint, (I suppose it was just taken as a "given",) to get back to my "female President" hypothetical, thankfully, today, no matter the US Constitution's "printed word", and the absence of an ERA type gender equality clause, according to today's social norms, the very idea of a law forbidding females from being elected president, though not "literally" unconstitutional, is no less a breach of America's true Constititution, which, though it may not demonstrate it in writing, GUARANTEES the right of women to be elected President. (Of course, given the most likely female candidate for '08, I have to admit that I wish, for this election alone, that there was a "temporary" ban of female Presidents...purely for ideological reasons of course! :--) Loomis 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was hinted at above, I don't think this argument was specifically mentioned. Even though I may (hypothetically) be a part of the majority, it does not necessarily mean that I want to see the rights of the minority abridged. Senators and Congressman who voted in such a manner thus would not receive my vote in the next election. If enough people felt as I did, and threatened to withhold votes from those elected officials who seek to abridge minority rights, it could keep Congress from enacting such legislation. GreatManTheory 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . . There were giants in the earth in those days,
and they bare children to them; the same became mighty men which were of old; men of renown.
B)Hindu cosmogony: the Vedas: Descent of the Brahmans:
which speaks of the descent of the Brahmans. The first Brahman complains of being alone among all his brethren without a wife. The eternal gave Brahman a wife of the race of the Daints and
C)Scandinavian cosmogonical fragment:Edda: Ganglar by Har:the first man, called Bur, "the father of Bor, who took for wife Besla, a daughter of the giant Bolthara, of the race of the primitive giants.
D)The same groundwork underlies the Grecian fables about the Titans; and may be found in the legend of the Mexicans -- the four successive races of Popol-Vuh
Is there any archeological evidence for this/these. Or any other relevant information one wishes to share concerning the Nephilim.
Thank you81.144.161.223 11:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think there isn't a connection; they probable just had big imaginations way back then. :-) | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futher more:In the "Quarterly Review" of 1859, Dr.P.Graham gives a strange account of many now deserted Oriental cities, in which the stone doors are of enormous dimensions, often seemingly out of proportion with the buildings themselves, and remarks that dwellings and doors bear all of them the impress of an ancient race of giants.
Our article on giants compares the appearance of giants in various traditions of folklore, mythology and legends. It also lists some reported (and possibly unverified) instances of finding unusual skeletons and other remains. Gandalf61 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and for the connection between "giants" and credulity, see the Cardiff Giant. --Wetman 13:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United States President who had a child out of wedlock before being elected?edit
Hello! I take care of an 87 yr old man - who feels certain that there was a United States President who had a child out of wedlock prior to being elected President. I have been unsuccessful in identifying whom this may have been. Does anyone know if, in fact, this is true? I would like to give him the name when I see him again. Thank you! Jerry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry Beck (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That's right. Carrie Phillips had an affair with Harding, but there's no suggestion they had a child together. Nan Britton claimed in "The President's Daughter" that her child Elizabeth Blaesing was fathered by Harding, but there's no proof he was in fact the father. JackofOz 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
don't forget Thomas Jefferson and Sally. --137.238.0.5 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally be extremely surprised if there was a US president born before 1905 who didn't have at least one illegitimate child. (Other than Washington and Buchanan, of course.) We moderns seem to think that we invented adultery and fornication and that everyone back then was somehow more "moral". BULL. It was a rare man in the 18th century who didn't have at least one illegitimate child. The difference back then was that a) nobody wrote about their illegitimate children, and b) the shame was 100% the woman's, even if she got pregnant through rape. --Charlene 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the information presented by your boss is accurate lets examine who it is.
First the facts your boss is 87 years old, assuming that is accurate the he was concieved 1918- 1919. The father must have been at least a teenager at the time your boss was cocieved. Based on this fact the father must have born some before 1905.
The second is the that your boss was born before his father became President. As your boss was born in 1919, that would rule out Wodrow Wilson and any of his predessors but could include warren Harding and any of his successors.
In essence the president could any one elect after 1920, who was before 1905.
Who fit this.
1. Warren Harding
He was known to have affairs and to have fathered an out of wedlock child.
2. Calvin Coolidge
3. Hebert Hoover.
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman
6. Dwight Eisenhower.
All latter presidents where born after 1905.
Well, at least he's not th — Kieff 09:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding the question correctly (a pretty poor assumption, I admit), then the question is: someone is claiming that they are the illegitimate offspring of a US President, and the poster wants to know if their claim is valid. Obviously, the only way to know for sure (barring some kind of authenticated acknowledgment) would be to conduct some kind of DNA testing (questions about which should be directed to the science reference desk). However, in the spirit of good faith, here's some (possible useful) information.
Of the presidents who seem to qualify (based on the criteria you supplied), three - Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman - have never (to my knowledge) been alleged to have affairs outside of marriage. Frankin Roosevelt did have at least one mistress, but I believe the most well-known affair ended in 1918, and I am not aware that any children cam from the relationship. I am also not aware of any subsequent extramarital affairs. Eisenhower has been alleged to have had an affair, but I do not believe there is any substantial evidence to support this claim. The only real candidate, then, is Roosevelt, and I don't think we can do any more without further information. Carom 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The discovery consists," he says, "in subjecting the vapors of volatile liquids to the action of concentrated sun-light, or to the concentrated beam of the electric light." The vapors of certain nitrites, iodides, and acids are subjected to the action of the light in an experimental tube, lying horizontally, and so arranged that the axis of the tube and that of the parallel beams issuing from the lamp are coincident. The vapors form clouds of gorgeous tints, and arrange themselves into the shapes of vases, of bottles and cones, in nests of six or more; of shells, of tulips, roses, sunflowers, leaves, and of involved scrolls. "In one case," he tells us, "the cloud-bud grew rapidly into a serpent's head; a mouth was formed, and from the cloud, a cord of cloud resembling a tongue was discharged." Finally, to cap the climax of marvels, "once it positively assumed the form of a fish, with eyes, gills, and feelers. The twoness of the animal form was displayed throughout, and no disk, coil, or speck existed on one side that did not exist on the other." Professor Tyndall
Is this possible, and what if any would be the practical application thereof? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Meadow elves. Nils Blommér, 1850A vivid imagination can "see" a lot of things in swirling mists, whether they be in a test tube or over a morning meadow. --mglg(talk) 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can;t find such a quote in the writings of Tyndall, so for the time being I will chalk it up to Blavatsky's creative writing. Edison 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a Dutch non fiction book the author ascribes the following quote to the Italian painter and sculptor Michelangelo:
"I shudder at the thought of the idiots who will follow my manner/style" (translation from Dutch).
My question: which passage from which book does this quote originate from?
Chompas 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism-The transition from oral to written tradition.edit
If possible, I would greatly appreciate a detailed analysis on the progression from an oral, to written tradition in Buddhism.
If at all possible please include dates, and as detailed a description as you can give.
This will be much appreciated.
thank you,
Hannah CS
86.40.204.0 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a huge subject. Have you read our article on Buddhist texts? Have a look at that and then say whether you referring to canonical or non-canonical texts, or both. And which particular language or school of Buddhism you had in mind. The oral tradition is very strong in Buddhism, and the first written texts were not made until the first century CE, but the process of committing to writing was carried on over many hundreds of years. In the Tibetan tradition there are teachings that are not committed to writing even today.--Shantavira 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com defines "self-improvement" as "improvement of one's mind, character, etc., through one's own efforts." I see this as a virtue. In a bookstore, I would expect to find this in the ethics section. Buddhists seem to call it samyag-vyāyāma or sammā-vāyāma, so I might find it under religion or philosophy, as well.
But Wikipedia redirects self-improvement to self-help, and treats the two as synonymous. That is not entirely wrong; there's certainly some overlap, and words can have various different meanings. I was thinking of changing the redirect to a disambiguation, but I just can't find an article about the other meaning. What do other people call this virtue?
I'd say the most important predicate of self-improvement is humility. Vranak
The two have approximately the same meaning, although self-help may mean more fixing a serious flaw, like alcoholism, while self-improvement may be just learning French or a new instrument or how to do origami. StuRat 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it seems to me you're reading my question backwards! (What's this TV show called again where they do that?) I didn't write "I have to words X and Y, explain the difference". I wrote: "I have a concept/virtue which some people call X. But X has two meanings, one of them is a synonym to Y. Is there a name for the other meaning of X, the one that is not a synonym to Y?" — Sebastian 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult one, Sebastian, because we are dealing with what are, perhaps, completely incompatible forms of thought. Self-improvement, in the sense we understand the term in the west, really does have a very limited and utilitarian application, one I associate most with the likes of Samuel Smiles, in particular his book Self-Help, published in 1859 at the height of the Industrial Revolution. I do not think that this could be distilled into the kind of higher, metaphysical applications of eastern religions, like Buddhism, where the emphasis, as I understand it, is on liberation from the self in this narrow and somewhat selfish and material sense. I am thinking here, of course, of doctrines like the Four Noble Truths. I'm sorry, but I know that has come nowhere close to answering your point. Clio the Muse 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was a helpful reply. I didn't know about Samuel Smiles, and you expressed what I meant much better than I did. I feel understood! — Sebastian 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Clio summarised your difficulty nicely: "in the sense we understand the term in the west, (it) really does have a very limited and utilitarian application" - well said. The problem is that the terms that we associate with psycho-spiritual improvement have been hi-jacked by new age publications, so I find myself at a loss for given an appropriate term for the hard-work kind of spiritual self-help which you seem to be trying to find. I do believe that the concept is sufficiently different from commercial style self help to justify a disambiguation, but the best I can offer is that you refer to the applicable articles separately. Would the term I just used, "Self improvement (psycho-spiritual)", be acceptable as an article which summarises the idea and refers to the other articles work? Note at the bottom of the Self-help article the link to "Self-Help, by Samuel Smiles, available freely at Project Gutenberg", if it interests you. --Seejyb 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Self improvement (psycho-spiritual)" is a good option. In the mean time, a non-Wikipedian friend of mine said she'd use "personal growth", and I like that that would avoid the parentheses. Would you be OK with that, too? — Sebastian 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ruins at Gardiner's Island, Long Island, New Yorkedit
Hi,
I see a page for Gardiner's Island, but no mention of the old fort (Fort Tyler) at the north tip. Unfortunate as this had a rich history. Rough outline I know is as a fort in 1898, at tip of a point of land connected to Gardiner's Island. Abandoned 1920, then used as target practice (ww2). Then tip of land was dredged out, to make it an island, as unexploded munitions still around. In recent times, a rich fishing site due to its location in the middle of the forks of Long Island, and steady tide back and forth.
Would it be possible to add a page for this, so that others more knowlegeable than me could complete the story?
See also here http://www.longislandlighthouses.com/gardiner.htm
and here http://dmna.ny.gov/forts/fortsT_Z/tylerFort.htm
..though some info seems to conflict..
Thanks -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.9.66 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's possible. Would you like to add the page yourself ? StuRat 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add the information to the article Gardiners Island, so that readers will find it. --Wetman 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'm not looking to start a debate, but I'm quite confused about the phrase "support our troops" which is so prevalent in American politics. On a recent visit to the US I was surprised by its ubiquity, because it is so vague and people who use it never clarify what they mean. People do not say it here in Australia, although we have a small number of troops in Iraq. For an example, Tony Snow recently said: "The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops...And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?" [1]
I assume it means something like "You should have positive feelings about the troops and agree, from a distance, with whatever they are doing". It doesn't seem to refer to anything very concrete, not "You should send money to the troops" and not even "You should send letters of support to the troops so they feel better". Maybe it means that you should be kind and respectful to military people when they come home, and that's good of course. But if that's all it means, how exactly would supporting the troops make any difference to the situation in Iraq?
Finally, do people who say "I support our troops" believe that the troops are justified in everything they do? Would such a person continue to support any troops who may have committed war crimes? You needn't assert your own political views in your answer or make any assumptions about my political views to answer my question. I am just curious, and open to level-headed answers from anyone. --Grace 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always considered it to mean "support and think of our lads who are 'out there' putting their lives on the line and following the orders given to them for their weekly pay - even if you don't agree with those responsible for sending them 'out there' or the orders they are being given". --Kurt Shaped Box 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the Vietnam War, many people included the denigration of serving Soldiers as part of general war protest. "Support our Troops" is more or less a reversal on that, recognizing that Soldiers don't really get a choice in their deployment once they've enlisted or been commissioned (c.f. the Army Lt under court-martial for refusing to return to Iraq, though he's willing to deploy to Afghanistan). It's not, however, a blanket statement of justification for any and all behavior. — Lomn 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that it's vague, Grace -- it's meant to be so. To a war supporter, it might mean, "I support the war." To a war opponent, it might mean, "I support the brave men and women who volunteered for their country only to be thrown into a quagmire by out-of-touch politicians, so bring them home already." It's the kind of thing politicians say that sounds good to almost everyone, like "God bless America." Regarding the second part of your question, I'm sure most people who "support the troops" don't support war crimes. I'm afraid, though, that a lot of right-wing people generally assume that the American military is always in the right, and that if they're torturing or killing it must be because those were terrorists who were going to kill Americans or who needed to be tortured to somehow save American lives. It's the flip side to the left-wing assumption that American troops are always evil monsters there to terrorize the local population and steal their resources.
I'm reminded of a funny thing I saw on the highway -- a truck with a message on the back that read (below an American flag): "I support our troops wherever WE go / No aid or comfort to the enemy!" And below that message was, believe it or not, an Ontario license plate! This super-patriotic hauling company was not patriotic enough to get U.S. plates for its trucks. -- Mwalcoff 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The army gets them when they're young, impressionable and idealistic. Often the kids come from places where there's no other jobs that pay and being a soldier seems like a positive career move. It's not their fault that they end up being used as the tools of evil, immoral, imperialistic Zionist stooges. --90.242.24.54 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's what I mean when I say the opposite of the people who always assume the U.S. is right are the kind of people who say the U.S. government is made up of "evil, immoral, imperialistic Zionist stooges." -- Mwalcoff 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not condone the actions of terrorists but I can understand why terrorism occurs. Back people into a corner and they will hit back by whatever means available (inevitably, the ordinary man in the street is the one to pay the price). This is exactly what the US has been doing by propping up the Zionist regime currently occupying Palestine and giving tacit endorsement to the genocide commited there. --90.242.24.54 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lomn is correct that this phrase is a response to the denigration of US troops by a few on the left during the Vietnam War. It is used by people on the right to suggest that any opposition to a war is disrespectful or even dangerous to the troops who are fighting it, and therefore bordering on treasonous. However, it has been appropriated by people on the left as well. I will break the NPOV rule by admitting to having a bumper sticker on my car that reads "Support Our Troops" in readable type on the first line, and "Bring Them Home Now!" in large type on the second line. Marco polo 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the call to 'support our troops' would have parallels predating the US revolution, I am sure ancient Greece and China would have references too. The western dialectic has expressed itself politically since the Vietnam war, with their being a special meaning attached to the phrase.
During the Vietnam war, the military action had contained the communist north, but steady supply of material from China sustained opposition. Popular resistance, through media and pop personalities (eg Jane Fonda, nicknamed Hanoi Jane)brought sustained political pressure on Republican presidential administrations, after haveing 'permitted' escalation under Democrat administrations. Nixon, in '69 had warned that the Vietnam war could be lost by the political opposition and so the phrase took on a current political tone that carries through to today. DDB 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK during the debate to go to war in Iraq two of the three largest political parties supported the war (initially) and the leader of the third said that he 'didn't support the war, but supported our troops', and was promptly subject to some criticism for having uttered what was essentialy a meaningless platitude. --Neo 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have to wonder what would his political opponents (some of them inside his own party) and a scandal-hungry media do with a simple "I don't support the war" statement? Twist the statement into a "shoot our troops into the back"? NAHHH we all know that the media is always a paragon of responsability and that politicians never ever use dirty tricks in anything as serious as politics, right? Sure. These days politicians have always be really careful with anything they say and be always cautious to cover their political as*. Flamarande 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is in itself a meaningless platitude, in the context of US politics, it immunizes the person who utters it from the charge that they are disrespectful toward the troops. If such charges are not be leveled at war critics in other political cultures such as the UK, then it really is a pointless utterance. What is irrelevant or silly in one cultural context may be important in another. Marco polo 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all very much for your answers. Interesting and helpful. --Grace 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the Vietnam War US men were drafted and sent over there. There were a wide variety of backgrounds, educational and socioecononomic represented. Today themilitary is voluntary, and the more wealthy and better educated tend to have other priorities. There is a meme that war protestors spat on returning Vietnam vets, but it is very hard to find anyone who says they did the spitting or that they were spat on. The result would have likely been a good ass kicking, besides which protestors knew that the soldiers went where they were sent and did not choose to start a war. Edison 06:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
