Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 16
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 15 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 17 > |
| 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. |
May 16[edit]
sunglass removal and the police[edit]
This is not a request for legal advice. This is just me watching K-PAX and getting curious. If an officer asks you to take off your sunglasses, are you required to do so? If someone refuses to take them off and the officer takes them off without permission, is that legal? What about a hat? A coat? Gloves? How far does it go if it goes anywhere? Wrad (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let me pose it to you in the opposite way. What constitutional right would protect you from that request? Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- (So if a police officer told you to hum the theme-tune from Doctor Who you would be required to obey that instruction in the absence of a specific constitutional right to the contrary? Come off it.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've basically assumed this question has applied to the U.S. law because it's reference a scene in a movie that occurs in the U.S., and I don't know U.K. law, but yes, if a sovereign nation passes a law that says if you don't hum that tune you can be imprisoned, there's little "law" to dispute that. As a practical matter, in the U.S., state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, will imply a rational basis test, and humming a tune may be one of the very few instances that fail that test. I can't comment on the U.K. But we should be very aware that sovereign nations are largely free to do what they please, as a practical matter. Free societies should always remember this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- What's the matter with you? "Free societies should always remember this." If you want to lecture about state theory, the Reference Desk is very much the wrong place. Your assertion that removal of glasses would be required unless there was a right to the contrary is clear nonsense, as illustrated by my example. Issues of sovereignty don't enter into it. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've basically assumed this question has applied to the U.S. law because it's reference a scene in a movie that occurs in the U.S., and I don't know U.K. law, but yes, if a sovereign nation passes a law that says if you don't hum that tune you can be imprisoned, there's little "law" to dispute that. As a practical matter, in the U.S., state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, will imply a rational basis test, and humming a tune may be one of the very few instances that fail that test. I can't comment on the U.K. But we should be very aware that sovereign nations are largely free to do what they please, as a practical matter. Free societies should always remember this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not the response I expected from you, but you feel strongly about this.
- (So if a police officer told you to hum the theme-tune from Doctor Who you would be required to obey that instruction in the absence of a specific constitutional right to the contrary? Come off it.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my point. Police power means what it is. And sovereign nations are free to exercise whatever control they want, with practical concern from what other nations may impose on them (i.e., war). In the U.S. the police power is relegated to the states generally, and in enumerated cases delegated to the federal government. There are restrictions on this, the most obvious of which are based in the U.S. Constitution, but perhaps controversially are also based in English common law. I would never support such an arbitrary law, nor would I ever believe a sane court could view humming a particular tune as a rational basis for a law, but if you want to understand how the rule of law works, that's it. Rational basis is a product of a legal system, it's not an a prior truth, and it certainly doesn't enforce itself on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- A sovereign nation may be able to pass whatever laws it likes, but the police aren't a sovereign nation. The police can't create new laws when they want to do something that is otherwise not allowed, they have to follow the existing laws. In the absence of any law authorising the police to remove somebody's glasses, doing so would be assault, which is as illegal for the police as for anyone else. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is a law that authorises police to remove somebody's glasses. I don't know the answer. The police have certain powers related to identifying people, but what exactly they are in the jurisdiction in question, I don't know. If somebody refused to remove a disguise and the police didn't have the power to remove it themselves, then I think they would at least have the power to arrest them (in the UK, at least, the police have the power to arrest someone for the purpose of identifying them). Once somebody is in police custody, there is probably something that would let them remove glasses (even if they have to call it a strip search). --Tango (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my point. Police power means what it is. And sovereign nations are free to exercise whatever control they want, with practical concern from what other nations may impose on them (i.e., war). In the U.S. the police power is relegated to the states generally, and in enumerated cases delegated to the federal government. There are restrictions on this, the most obvious of which are based in the U.S. Constitution, but perhaps controversially are also based in English common law. I would never support such an arbitrary law, nor would I ever believe a sane court could view humming a particular tune as a rational basis for a law, but if you want to understand how the rule of law works, that's it. Rational basis is a product of a legal system, it's not an a prior truth, and it certainly doesn't enforce itself on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent answer. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's a defective argument in the US, where all the government's rights are granted it by the people, as is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government (and therefore the police) don't have, by default, the right to do anything they want unless a constitutional right circumscribes their power; it's the other way around. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's actually not. The federal government's powers are limited to its enumerated powers, the 10th amendment is an express description of that; the States, however, have plenary police power. That power is only limited by the Constitution, or any subordinate law (such as a state Constitution). Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right the rights of all U.S. governments, whether at the federal level, or at the State level, are granted by democratic process, but there are wide ranging statues giving law enforcement officers wide discretion to investigate suspected crimes, at both levels. Notwithstanding the constitution, namely due process considerations, these rules would be relatively unrestricted. Let's say state X passed a law that said any resident had to comply with any and all orders issued by a law enforcement officer. If that were a law, on what basis might one object? Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the grounds that some of what they might order you to do might be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm only trying to elucidate what the premise of this objection is. This isn't necessarily the world I'd design, but it's the world that is. Let's be clear about what the law actually is.
- On the grounds that some of what they might order you to do might be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's a defective argument in the US, where all the government's rights are granted it by the people, as is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government (and therefore the police) don't have, by default, the right to do anything they want unless a constitutional right circumscribes their power; it's the other way around. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- So, which Constitutional provision? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this, and I don't have any particular case law at hand; but I would first reach for the way the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states, as discussed in Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that the government's rights, as you say, are granted to it; and the 14th has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states; so if a particular power hasn't been granted to a cop, then he doesn't have that power. If a cop walks up to a person in the US and tells her to jump up and down on one leg for 60 seconds, she can, and should, tell the cop to go to hell, because Americans haven't constitutionally granted the government the ability to harass Americans at will. Now, if the cop has a reasonable need to see behind the sunglasses in order to fulfill his public duty, that's a different matter. (I also don't know if reasonableness is the standard.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comet: Practically I think you're right. Reasonableness is the standard, and it's reasonableness in carrying out the duties that are either permitted or legitimized by a democratic law (not one made up on the spot by an executive official, an officer). But the 9th and 10th amendments are rarely discussed in this kind of scholarship and because they're more structural I don't think it makes sense to talk about them as being incorporated by the 14th, nor have they. Our articles on both of those amendments are very good. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- So, which Constitutional provision? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- What if the policeman ordered the subject to confess or he would be shot? Obviously, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Violation of the 5th amendment if by federal officials, 14th if by state officials, and murder in every jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Violation of the 5th amendment if by federal officials, 14th if by state officials, and murder in every jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- What if the policeman ordered the subject to confess or he would be shot? Obviously, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming we're talking about being pulled over, there are certain things the cops can do and certain things they can't, but one thing they can certainly do is to verify that you are licensed to drive. As part of that, they have to verify it's you, and in so doing, they would likely tell you to take off your sunglasses or anything else that's hiding your face sufficiently that they can't make a positive ID. Driving a car on a public thoroughfare is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state, and in getting that license you agree to abide by the driving laws. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although the latter is correct, the original poster didn't mention driving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- They also never say that they're US American. Dismas|(talk) 07:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- As a practical matter, see Terry stop. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although the latter is correct, the original poster didn't mention driving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming we're talking about being pulled over, there are certain things the cops can do and certain things they can't, but one thing they can certainly do is to verify that you are licensed to drive. As part of that, they have to verify it's you, and in so doing, they would likely tell you to take off your sunglasses or anything else that's hiding your face sufficiently that they can't make a positive ID. Driving a car on a public thoroughfare is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state, and in getting that license you agree to abide by the driving laws. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, in the UK, specially-authorised police can require anyone to remove anything which it appears is worn solely for the purpose of disguising themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In my local area, there's a sign at the entrance of all local banks, requesting people not to wear hats or sunglasses in the bank, since they obstruct security cameras. AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Answer to OP -- No, of COURSE you are not "required" to do so. The only conceivable exception would be if a legal search (which, absent arrest or warrant, is limited to a search for weapons) involved examination of the glasses or the area they covered, but that is almost impossible to imagine. If checking an ID, no arrest would result for refusal (though the cop might find other ways to hassle you, at the risk of a lawsuit or formal complaint); contra BasballBugs, your lack of an inherent right to drive does not grant the cop the right to absurdly doubt your ID's picture unless you remove your glasses, and certainly doesn't create any right to order you to remove them. Shadowjams's answers are inaccurate improvisations -- just making stuff up. "Police powers" have nothing to do with the police per se; that is, states could exercise police powers even if there were no police at all, as indeed they did for the first couple of centuries that the "police powers" concept existed. "Reasonable/rational basis" has absolutely nothing to do with what the police can or can't do -- it applies exclusively to legislation. The Constitution doesn't enter into it at all, 9th or 10th or nth amendment. The police can't order you to take off your glasses (unless you're in custody) any more than anyone else can. All of the irrelevant references to police powers and reasonable basis and the constitution would only apply if a) legislation was interpreted to give police the power to order you to take off your glasses, or b) a policeman was defending himself against a lawsuit or complaint resulting from forcing you to take of your glasses by claiming an implicit right to do so. But neither of those hypotheticals exists, and the OP's question presents no such hypothetical. Again: Can ANYBODY order you (an adult not under arrest or a minor not in school or otherwise under quasi-parental authority) to take off your sunglasses, except on private property (in which case the remedy is "you must leave," not "you're under arrest")? NO. Can the police do so? NO. It's as simple as that. Of course, a control freak policeman might respond to a refusal by arresting you on trumped-up charges, but the charge would not be "failure to take off glasses." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think my "improvisations" are inaccurate at all. In fact, yours appear to have some problems, most obviously your assertion that the police under no circumstances can force you to remove your sunglasses. That's an absolutely remarkable claim, and anyone who's ever practiced a day would recognize that assertion as such. If you want to attack my ideas that's fine, but explain your basis for doing so. The OP is way gone at this point anyway... Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you refuse to take off your sunglasses to allow the cop to verify that you are the one pictured on the license, then he might well take you in on suspicion of driving with a stolen license. Now, are you going to go through that hassle? Or are you going to doff your sunglasses? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The OP specifically said "required." (Meanwhile, I specifically mentioned the possibility of being hassled on something trumped-up for refusing, and also the risk the cop takes of being sued or formally complained about for arresting you on obviously bogus charges.) Here's the same question: can anybody walking down the street walk up to you and legitimately order you to take off your sunglasses? Can anybody pull up next to you at a stoplight and shout a legitimate order at you to take off your sunglasses? The answer is no, and the answer has nothing to do with police powers or rational basis or the constitution. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the police have reasonable cause to question you, then they have reasonable cause to demand identification. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The OP specifically said "required." (Meanwhile, I specifically mentioned the possibility of being hassled on something trumped-up for refusing, and also the risk the cop takes of being sued or formally complained about for arresting you on obviously bogus charges.) Here's the same question: can anybody walking down the street walk up to you and legitimately order you to take off your sunglasses? Can anybody pull up next to you at a stoplight and shout a legitimate order at you to take off your sunglasses? The answer is no, and the answer has nothing to do with police powers or rational basis or the constitution. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think my comment above contains the short answer to the OP's question. The cops probably cannot "make you" take off your sunglasses as such. But they have authority to confirm that you are who you claim to be on the license, and if you won't cooperate, they would have reasonable cause to believe that you've got someone else's license, and could take you in. Then, someone could probably "make you" take off your sunglasses. So if you want to go through all that, let us know how it turns out. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- So if you had a full beard but had been clean-shaven on your ID picture, the cop could order you to shave? PLEASE. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Your honor, the suspect was tall, skinny, young, caucasion, male, and had black hair; his license read 6-foot-3, 170 pounds, 23 years old, male, and black hair, and the photo showed a white person. However, I couldn't tell if he had blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes, and his license said 'brown,' so I arrested him for driving with a stolen license." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- On suspicion of driving with a stolen license. And you don't have a constitutional right to drive on a public roadway. You have to abide by the traffic laws. And if one of those laws is that you must confirm you're the guy on the license, then you must do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is actually kind of the flip side of some Muslims who wanted to be photographed for their licenses with only their eyes visible. As the states pointed out, you don't have to have your eyes visible in general, but the state doesn't have to give you a license if you won't cooperate. The drivers license rules are defined by the individual states. The Illinois Rules of the Road[1] indicate that there are serious penalties for presenting someone else's license as your own. So if you refuse to let the cops identify you to their satisfaction, they would have reasonable cause for arrest on suspicion of license fraud. And if you tried to claim "constitutional rights", they would probably take your license away anyway, on the grounds that you're too stupid to be driving. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- *looks at ID photo... short curly hair, glasses, full cheeks, white skin... *looks in mirror... long straight hair in a pony tail, no glasses, skinny face, well tanned skin. Add in the coloured contact lenses I've worn on occasion. I doubt sunglasses would make much difference. Anyway, if a copper asks you to remove your sunglasses, it'll be more because xe doesn't like talking at someone who's eyes they can't see than identifying you. Say you've shown ID, if the age matches, the ethnicity matches, the appearance is plausible and you answer to the name on the ID the cop has no reasonable reason to suspect you're concealing your ID. If you haven't shown any ID and you're not under arrest there's even less excuse for an order to remove the specs. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is actually kind of the flip side of some Muslims who wanted to be photographed for their licenses with only their eyes visible. As the states pointed out, you don't have to have your eyes visible in general, but the state doesn't have to give you a license if you won't cooperate. The drivers license rules are defined by the individual states. The Illinois Rules of the Road[1] indicate that there are serious penalties for presenting someone else's license as your own. So if you refuse to let the cops identify you to their satisfaction, they would have reasonable cause for arrest on suspicion of license fraud. And if you tried to claim "constitutional rights", they would probably take your license away anyway, on the grounds that you're too stupid to be driving. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- On suspicion of driving with a stolen license. And you don't have a constitutional right to drive on a public roadway. You have to abide by the traffic laws. And if one of those laws is that you must confirm you're the guy on the license, then you must do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was asked, on going through a UK Airport security, to remove my shoes. I refused. The demand was repeated. Then I said that I was not wearing shoes, so I could not take shoes off! The security staff said: Oh, what ever! I felt clearly that if I said more I'd have been arrested! I did remove my sandals. That is as far as I could go in, "bucking the system"! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Being pedantic isn't exactly "bucking the system." It's more just being rude to the people in line with you, not just the security folks who are doing this because a guy tried to blow up his feet on a plane. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Back to the original question: yes, you can refuse to remove your glasses/hat/whatever to the officer, but that may give the officer reasonable cause to suspect you of wrongdoing (depending on the situation). That can then lead to searches of your person or car, and possibly arrest. Remember these, are men and women who have a job that regularly involves people threating to and/or physically attacking them. They're going to be a bit paranoid, with reason. Removing your sunglasses not only helps them verify your ID, but it also lets them see if you have red eye or dilated pupils from drinking, drugs or lack of sleep (all of which can impair you to the point of threatening other's safety). Refusal to remove your glasses causes suspicion that you may be hiding that fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bengali surnames[edit]
Is there a website where it shows the surnames in Bengali language in terms of which religious community uses which surnames? So far I know that all surnames that are Arabic are used by Muslim community. So far, I know that Mazumdar, Sarkar, Chowdhury, Biswas, Halawdar/Haldar, Aich, Bhuiyan and Talukdar are used by both Muslims and Hindus. So far, I know that Acharya, Adhikari, Aich, Ain, Ash, Baag, Bagchi, Baidya, Bandyopadhyaya/Banerjee, Banik, Basak, Burman, Bhadra, Bhanja, Bhar, Bhatta, Bhattacharya, Bhowmik, Bhuiyan, Biswas, Bose/Basu, Brahmachari, Chakraborty, Chanda, Chandra, Chandratre, Chandratreya, Chanda, Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee, Choudhuri/Chaudhuri/Choudhury, Daam, Daha, Das, Dasgupta, Dasbiswas, Dastidar, Deb/Dev, Debnath, Dey/De, Dhar, Datta/Dutta, Dutta-Gupta, Dutta-Ray, Duari, Gangopadhyaya/Ganguly, Gaur, Ghatak, Ghosh, Ghosh-Dastidar, Ghoshal, Goswami, Guha, Guha Neogi, Guha Roy, Guhathakurta, Gunin, Gupta, Haldar, Hazra, Hor, Hui, Jana, Kabiraj, Kar, Karmakar, Kolapatra, Kumar, Kumhor, Kundu, Laha, Lahiri, Maitra, Maity, Majumdar, Mal, Malla, Majhi, Malakar, Mallick, Mandal, Manna, Maulik, Misra, Mitra, Mukhopadhyaya/Mukherjee, Munshi, Nag, Nandan, Nandy, Naskar, Neogi, Pal, Palit, Pathak, Poddar, Poriya, Porel, Pradhan, Pramanik, Rakshit Ray, Roy/Ray, Raychowdhury/Ray Chaudhuri, Rudra, Sadhukhan, Saha, Samaddar, Samanta, Sana, Santra, Sanyal, Sarbhan, Sarkar, Sen, Sengupta, Sensharma, Sharma, Shastry, Shikdar, Sinha\Shingha, Som, Sur, Swar, Talukdar, Talapatra and Thakur\tagore are used by only Hindus. So far that I know that Barua is used only by Buddhists. Is there any Hindu or Buddhist Bengali surnames that I should know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.170 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Punjabi surnames[edit]
Which Punjabi surnames are purely Muslim? Which Punjabi surnames are purely Sikh?
- Male Sikhs almost always have "Singh" as their middle name, after a first name and last name is usually caste. In females it's "Kaur" Jon Ascton (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Which Punjabi surnames are both Muslim and Sikh?
- Very few. "Chaudhry" comes to mind. Jon Ascton (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Which Punjabi surnames are purely Hindus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hindu names derived Sanskrit[edit]
Is there a website is shows the Hindus names, both male and female that derived from Sanskrit like Dilip, Prakash, Rani, Raja, and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
US spending a lot on military aid[edit]
Why is the US spending $2.55bn a year on military aid to Isreal, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8681919.stm ? A surprisingly large amount of money. Why so much money, and why Israel and not some other country? 78.149.199.79 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The first two paragraphs of Israel – United States military relations pretty much describe the two main and one minor reasons: they share (some) security interests, there's a strong pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and less importantly, they help develop better weapons. Plus the U.S. would suffer a blow to its prestige if it were to abandon its longtime ally. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- As for why not some other country, no other country has such a powerful lobby in Washington pressing for military aid. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the most important "lobbying" that was ever done in this respect was the Arabs' pathetic performance in 1967, a year when they combined irresponsible grandiose aggressive sabre-rattling and frequent bloodthirsty bombastic wannabe-genocidal threats to "throw the Jews into the sea" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam before the war, together with an ignominious abject shameful complete military collapse when it came to actual fighting. This created a wave of support for Israel in the U.S. -- before 1967, the U.S. government supported Israel in some ways, but it always carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of direct U.S.-Israel military alliance. After 1967, this reticence was tossed aside, and Arab-Israeli conflict became part of the U.S. Soviet cold-war confrontation, with the U.S. heavily backing Israel militarily and in other ways -- and the Arabs didn't really have anybody but themselves to blame... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where did blame bome into this from? Also I think it's questionable of the US support would remain so strong were it not for other factors. This is 2010 not 1968. Also your answer doesn't really explain why the amount to Israel is greater then other countries, but some of the above answers start to Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the most important "lobbying" that was ever done in this respect was the Arabs' pathetic performance in 1967, a year when they combined irresponsible grandiose aggressive sabre-rattling and frequent bloodthirsty bombastic wannabe-genocidal threats to "throw the Jews into the sea" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam before the war, together with an ignominious abject shameful complete military collapse when it came to actual fighting. This created a wave of support for Israel in the U.S. -- before 1967, the U.S. government supported Israel in some ways, but it always carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of direct U.S.-Israel military alliance. After 1967, this reticence was tossed aside, and Arab-Israeli conflict became part of the U.S. Soviet cold-war confrontation, with the U.S. heavily backing Israel militarily and in other ways -- and the Arabs didn't really have anybody but themselves to blame... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- As for why not some other country, no other country has such a powerful lobby in Washington pressing for military aid. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
To 78.149.199.79 -- 1) It would be nice if you could actually spell "Israel" correctly. 2) I wonder why you don't object to U.S. aid to Egypt, which is also in the billions per year range? AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be so paranoid - the OP was not aware that the US paid any aid to Eygpt. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who said anything about objecting to the money? The OP seemed surprised and asked why, while perhaps they object to it although as someone apparently living in the UK, they may not care and in any case they definitely didn't say anything about objecting to it. Finally since the OP spelt Israel correctly once ([2] in case there is any doubt), it's surely not that big an issue that they spelt it incorrectly once as well something which could easily be a result of typing to fast or any other number of things. Proofreading your posts to ensure there are absolutely no typos is not a requirement for participating in the RD. Furthermore, although the OP's IP looks up to the UK, there's no guarantee that English is even their first language. Definitely if someone talked about Malaysai or New Zaeland I might correct them but usually wouldn't get so worked up about it. (Even then I probably wouldn't bother if they did it one time but also spelt it correctly another time.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Robin Hood: infernal blood in the Angevins[edit]
> After seeing ROBIN HOOD, I researched the history of the times.......and > I saw the statement that there was 'infernal blood in the > Angevins'...........I have tried to check that statement out....with no > luck... > > WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THERE WAS INFERNAL BLOOD IN THE DYNASTY?? > > > Dave Gaefke >
email address removed, answers will be posted here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.141.116 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have you checked out this article: House of Plantagenet?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't mention the contemporary legend that the Counts of Anjou and by extension, members of the Plantagenet dynasty were descended from the devil. It was just a popular myth at the time, just as Elizabeth Woodville was said to have been descended from Melusine, the fairy-witch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- And we have an article on Melusine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that, thanks Adam! The family of Lusignan was allegedly descended from the enchanting Melusine. Oh, and have you ever heard of the medieval malady water elf sickness? I read about it in a book that was set in 14th century England. It was a popular mental illness at the time in which afflicted people were said to be possessed by nixies, kelpies and water elves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- And we have an article on Melusine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Novel in Heaven[edit]
I can't remember the name of this book but the key theme is it all takes place within heaven. The character dies (before the novel starts) and the beginning describes his arrival and what happens as he explores the place. Any ideas? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Five People You Meet in Heaven? (The summary says the protagonist dies at the beginning, but this was a bestseller.) Category:Bangsian fantasy is a trifle thin, but have a look. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson? But apparently the protagonist dies early in the novel. dlempa (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the best name for the new UK coalition government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.208 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The Condems" has been suggested. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Her Majesty's Government appears to be the official version. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Liberal Conservatives? Unsurprisingly I'm not the only one to think of it [3] Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- It depends what is meant by "the best name". The Cameron ministry covers it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit]
Does the United States contribute financially or otherwise to the defense of the Scandinavian countries? If the US suddenly spent much much less and scaled back a huge amount on the world scale a(hypothetically take the US out of the picture for a minute)would the Scandinavian countries have to increase their military financially and in man power? I wonder because I know they don't spend much for military and while some of their armies are compulsory service they don't seem very large in size, so, how do they effectively protect themselves and if they did have to increase efforts would that put a financial burden on the countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.251.203 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Political neutrality goes a long way towards decreasing a nation's defence needs. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sweden and Finland are more or less neutral, but Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are members of NATO and as such count on US assistance in the event of any attack. Looking at our List of countries by military expenditure, Sweden and Norway spend similar amounts on their militaries. Sweden spends $5.2 billion, or 1.4% of its GDP in its military, while Norway spends $4.8 billion, or 1.5% of its GDP. Denmark spends 1.3% of its smaller GDP on its military. Finland spends 1.2 % of its GDP. Iceland has no true military. It is doubtful that countries as small as these could hope to defend themselves against a massive invasion from a much larger power such as Russia or the United States, no matter how much of their GDPs they devoted to military spending. (I know that the latter scenario seems implausible.) The most they can do is try discourage invasion with a promise of inflicting damage if invasion were attempted. Beyond that, small countries such as these have always relied on alliances, diplomacy, and the balance of power between larger powers. Since Sweden and Norway spend such similar amounts, and since all Scandinavian countries (other than Iceland) all spend similar proportions of their GDP on their militaries, I don't think we can assume that a US withdrawal from NATO, for example, would change the military budgets of Norway or Denmark. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The icy mountainous geography of Scandanavia largely precludes a thrust through there by the Russians, who would logically concentrate their main attack through the centre of Europe. The military domination of the North Atlantic by the US Navy and Royal Navy, (and don't forget the Marine Nationale) precludes any seaborne invasion of Iceland. The US isn't going to be withdrawing from NATO any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.16.248 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- You might also be interested in List of states with nuclear weapons, which explains that some countries that have nuclear weapons may or may not actually have control over them. None of the Scandinavian countries are mentioned in our article on that subject, but you might consider NATO status as something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The icy mountainous geography of Scandanavia largely precludes a thrust through there by the Russians, who would logically concentrate their main attack through the centre of Europe. The military domination of the North Atlantic by the US Navy and Royal Navy, (and don't forget the Marine Nationale) precludes any seaborne invasion of Iceland. The US isn't going to be withdrawing from NATO any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.16.248 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)