Humanities desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3

US election

In US elections, people vote for president all the way down to local dog catcher in a single election, plus initiatives and propositions. In Tuesday's election, what's the average number of things a voter have to vote for? F (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted every year for the last 20 years. While I have had elections with a good 30 items on the list, many of the items are not much of a vote because there is only one person running and you have a choice between voting for that person or writing a name in. I assume this heavily depends on the city. Some cities may put a lot of stuff on an election ballot. Others may put very little up for public vote. -- kainaw ™ 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state and locality. Some states lack elected judges and propositions and might not elect state and local officers this year. In Ohio, I'd say you're looking at about 50 things on the ballot ranging from president to local liquor issues. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite so bad here in Massachusetts. I expect to vote on maybe 10 officeholders (including the president) and 3 ballot questions. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite is the county drain commissioner in Michigan. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For California, 50-100 items on a presidential-year ballot is about average. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess that's why they have to use voting machines? F (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I've voted absentee (mail) in the last 14 elections. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like I'm on the low end of the scale. I had (from memory) Pres/vPres, Gov, Lt. Gov, Sec of State, State Tresurer, State Rep (Fed), State Rep (State), High Bailiff, Attorney General, Auditor of Accounts, and maybe one more that I can't recall off the top of my head. Although, unlike other Vermont towns, we didn't get to vote on whether to have Bush or Cheney arrested if they come to our town. Besides, that would have been done on town meeting day. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is stunning. I've voted in more elections than I care to remember, and I've never had to vote for more than four things at the most, and almost always only three. You guys are nuts in America! Belisarius (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample ballot from North Carolina. It has 36 different races on there.--droptone (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing to remember is that in many states you can vote straight ticket, which means "all Democrat" or "all Republican" and knock out dozens of candidates in one fell swoop. You still have to vote in the non-partisan races like for judgeships and dog catchers, and for some reason in my state (North Carolina) straight-ticket does not cover the presidential election. --Sean 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In North Carolina, this dates to the 1960's, when conservative southern Democrats wished to distance themselves from their national counterparts, which had become quite liberal. This allowed good conservatives to vote for the conservative Republican presidential candidate, while still protecting the local Democratic Party machine, which controlled politics at the local level. This associated press article: [1] explains it quite well. See also the coattail effect as to more on this.. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In California, the current election has 12 propositions, as well as the Presidential candidates, House of Representatives, State Assembly, State Senate, school boards (in some jurisdictions), judges, junior college districts, water commissioners, and city and county board members. There are no Governor or Senate elections this year. There will be in two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this side of the pond, it seems ludicrous to have so many things on the ballot. I must have voted in half-a-dozen general elections with just a short list of prime ministerial candidates on the ballot paper, and only once have I had a second ballot paper to elect a local councillor. Astronaut (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't paying much attention when voting... you vote for a candidate to be Member of Parliament for your constituency. They will usually come from a particular party and the leader of the party with the most MPs usually becomes Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not directly elected (even less so than in the US). --Tango (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Tango is correct... it's been a tough week and it's only got to Tuesday! Astronaut (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From an American perspective, it may seem quite undemocratic not to be able to vote for things like school-board members, constitutional amendments and tax levies -- let alone members of the upper house of the legislature! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only from the American perspective - well, at least about the constitutional amendments and the upper house, both of which we get a say about here in Australia. In fact, a referendum is the only way our Constitution can be changed. I guess that's the neat thing about not having a universally recognised constitution (UK) - despite its apparent non-existence, the powers that be can still change it. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I've always felt that Canada's Senate and other Commonwealth upper houses are bargain-basement Houses of Lords, without the spiffy titles and retro robes. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true for the unelected Canadian Senate (btw, when will the Canucks join the 21st century and give their people some direct say about who their legislators are?). Most of the others I don't know much about. But the elected Australian Senate has turned out to be one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. It played a crucial part in having a Prime Minister dismissed from office in 1975, despite holding a substantial majority in the lower house. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I was thinking, is religion, at least today, a concept that stunts our growth intellectually? Before, in the 1500s, it was used to inspire artists. Today, in America people do or don't pick a leader because of their religion. Most of the time being about if they are Christian enough. Also, people's "faith" lets them bend the facts without them knowing it. Like many people (especially in America), either don't believe in evolution or have doubts about it. It makes so much sense and there are few scientific ideas that compete with it, yet people fight to have Creationism taught in public schools. The idea that strong enough faith can make it real (if you really believe in God, it exists) is very counterintuitive to the idea of if something has facts it's real. How can this be conducive to a intelligent culture? I mean to offend no one, I would just like to know people ideas on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.192.105 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than enter into a debate here on the subject, we can point out some reading that might help you reach your own conclusions. I will start with suggesting Christopher Hitchens's book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (published in the United Kingdom as God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion) for one view. We have an article on it at God Is Not Great. I am sure there will be many other texts added. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two brief thoughts: 1. religion did more than inspire artists (it was the chief motivation for most early versions of what we would call "scientists" today, like Newton) and 2. to only understand the role of religion through the eye of whether it conflicts with science is both limiting and limited. Most of religion in people's lives has nothing to do with Creationism, and most religion in the world does not have the issues with science that you get in American politics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see a person struggling with this sort of issue, I am reminded of what I my grandfather told me when I was 7 and complained that baseball is boring and shouldn't be allowed to waste our time on TV: "No matter what you believe or how strongly you believe it, at least half the world disagrees with you."

So, attempting to start a debate on this topic is out of place on a reference desk and will do nothing more than demonstrate that some people disagree with you and some people agree with you. You should already know that. -- kainaw ™ 03:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that religion was 'the chief motivation for most early versions of what we would call "scientists" today'. Newton may have been inspired by religion, but he was also nuts! Certainly, most natural philosophers of that era worked independantly or even in opposition to the church. Galileo certainly wasn't all that faithful to his catholisism. Scientists back then did science for the same reason scientists do science now, to find out how stuff works. Belisarius (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a scholarly perspective, the sociology of religion traces and studies the (positive, negative, and neutral) effects of religion on society and vice versa, though our article on it isn't very good at the moment. --Delirium (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly dispute your assertion that Americans pick leaders based on religion, if only on the grounds that we haven't done so. Without intending offense to anyone, John Kennedy was elected despite being Catholic; Jimmy Carter lost his reelection despite being a lay precher; Ronald Reagan, George the Sane and Bill Clinton kept their religious beliefs private; Dubious wore his on his sleeve, but didn't practice what he preached. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans do, however, vote based on a few specific beliefs they associate with religion (abortion being the big one, gay marriage another). But you're right that it's not the only factor, and the issue isn't "who is more religious" at all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While American voters may not really care what religion their president is (although the chance of a Muslim being elected is probably rather slim), I've seen polls which show a very large proportion of voters wouldn't vote for an atheist. --Tango (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George H.W. Bush famously opined that atheists shouldn't even be conferred citizenship! --Sean 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly. According to the Wikipedia article on atheist rights advocate Robert I. Sherman, who is the one and only source of the quote, "Though [the Bush quote is] alleged to have been made at a press conference, only Sherman claims to have heard it." The alleged Bush quote is all over the Internet, of course, particularly on atheist sites. There's no proof that the quote is genuine, but clearly some atheists have enough faith to believe. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks for the fact check! --Sean 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also dispute that religion stunts thought - whether you agree or disagree with them, you have to admit that Answers In Genesis has some very creative ways to explain the world's existence and everything based on the Bible. I happen to agree with them, otehrs don't. It's something we must take by faith becuase none of us was there. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A counter arguement that religion has NOT interferred with science (and the reverse) is made in several books by Stephen J. Gould, who argues that religion and science can and should peacefully coexist, and that our lives are fuller when BOTH are part of them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is almost impossible to answer without getting into the realm of opinion, but as long as this topic hasn't been banned, I'd like to point out that modern science leaves plenty of room for religion. Science to date has been unable to answer questions like what came before the Big Bang, what happens in less than Planck time and what lies beyond the observable universe. Even if science can one day answer such questions, those findings will open up new questions -- science will never be able to explain everything. So there is plenty of room for faith in a rational universe. Incidentally, I heard a recording of the George H.W. Bush quote on the Donahue show years back. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that religious people aren't very happy being banished to the tiny universe of Planck time. I imagine they dislike that the holes where God fits in are getting smaller and smaller. Belisarius (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God is in the details. And that which lies beyond the observable universe is not small at all. Or so we might know if we could observe it! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that God is confined to those times and places; the quest for understanding God's creation leads to a finer and more accurate understanding of His creation. Science doesn't necessarily disprove God, it only gives us a better, more accurate image of His work... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meiendorf Castle, near Moscow?

News reports on and off mention a "Meiendorf Castle", near Moscow, that seems to be used primarily for Russia's foreign minister to host visiting foreign dignitaries [2][3]. I can't find any information on the castle apart from such news reports, though (all recent ones). There's a Meiendorf near Hamburg, but that's clearly not the same. Does this castle also go under a different name? --Delirium (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Замок Меендорф", also transliterated as Meyendorf, Meendorf, sometimes Maiendorf. But I can't find much on it in English. It was apparently an old castle turned sanatorium in the Soviet period and now redone as a place for official meetings. This is an article on it in German (warning, it tries to print when you open it). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The connection with a Baltic German baron explains why a castle near Moscow would have a German-sounding name. With the alternate spellings, I also found a (much briefer) description of it in this article from Der Spiegel. --Delirium (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German-derived names were also not all that uncommon in Russia; see St. Petersburg and Orenburg for examples of other german-named russian locations... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Kronstadt and Yekaterinburg. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic Leaders, Orwellianism, Propaganda, and Groupthink

Hey again! I'm looking for literature (fictional or otherwise) involving the means by which people can be controlled and made to do things that they wouldn't do in ordinary circumstances. For instance, books on the banality of evil (Eichmann in Jerusalem is the classic text, of course), and the ways in which the meanings of words can be changed, and the clever psychological means by which charismatic figures gain control of crowds. Also, the sometimes bizarre justifications and rationalizations they use to achieve their ends, and the rationalizations of the people who decide to follow them. I'm having a hard time believing the Holocaust could have happened, and I'm convinced there are things happening in America which shouldn't be happening (secret prisons in foreign countries, for example; some would say abortion), but the masses have been so effectively subdued with propaganda and political techniques that very few think to question them. I'm familiar with the psychological experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo, and I would love to read more.

Thank you, and blessings :) MelancholyDanish (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

I realise you mean non-fiction and guess you know about George Orwell's 1984, but it sets you thinking. (Oops just re-read your question.) There's also the obliging complicity of people who give up their daily accounts to the Government without seeming to be aware of the implications and anything on the saturation of CCTV in England might be helpful. There's also the problem of internet corporations handing over user's private details like the case of Wang Xiaoning. Hindsight, power and the individual are a blend of some kind. PS have you read much on Zeitgeist? Collective consciousness has some links and there's Emile Durkheim. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durkheim looks quite dark in spots, so I recommend anything by cultural post-structuralist (?) Mark Poster at Amazon, Mark Poster on Marxism with light relief in the way of Mark Twain. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A classic manual in this area is Propaganda by Edward Bernays. Interesting trivia about the author and the book: Bernays was a double nephew of Sigmund Freud (his father was the brother of Freud's wife and his mother was Freud's sister) and the book was a favourite of Joseph Goebbels. The documentary The Century of the Self explains some of Bernays' ideas, it's really good, watch it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the specifics of the Holocaust, you might be interested in Ordinary Men, which is specifically about this question. It's a good, short read as well. It's not about "the masses" so much as understanding how a bunch of "ordinary men" (the Ordnungspolizei) got drafted into doing much of the brutal work of the Holocaust. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, no one has mentioned the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment? —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned by the questioner. —Kevin Myers 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oopski. —Tamfang (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tale Motif

Why is it that there's frequently a mean wife with her kind husband? Does this sort of thing even occur in real life (I can't imagine why anyone would...)? 203.188.92.72 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most fairy tales were written during the Middle Ages and a little later, well before modern medicine. this meant that many women died in childbirth. Therefore, it wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry.

As to whether men commonly remarried nice or mean women, it's tough to say. My guess is that they were generally nice but, like the media today exploiting the bad news, the mean ones got the attention because they were more noticeable.

Another thought is that the presence of mean stepmothers spoke to the fears of children, after a mother had died in childbirth, that the new mother wuld be mean. Writers have often tried to write things that spoke to peoples' feelings, after all. It could even be used to reassure a child when a nice woman - but one who they were unfamiliar with - did come into the household. "See, honey, she's not that bad; if she was, she'd be making you clean all the time like Cinderella's stepmother."Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it occurs, why wouldn't it? There are over 6 billion people in the world, there has to be such a couple somewhere, surely? In fairy tales, it's often a mean step-mother. That occurred due to the likelihood of women dying in childbirth, the father would then remarry. It's not surprising that in some cases the new wife would favour her own children over her husband's children from his previous marriage. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, some fellow students have suggested a pair of music teachers. Come to think of it, this also occurs in the beginning of The Book Thief. The question this brings up is why they got married. 203.188.92.72 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why they got married? that's easy. Take a couple in school where you think "what does he/she see in the other person?!" where the couple is going steady. A lot of times, sadly, people marry out of lust when they think it's love and they dont' think about the consequences. While there was no dating back then, that just made it harder for a man and woman to realize one of them was really bad. Especially if it was an arranged marriage, which sometimes happened (though I wouldn't think it would have with the 2nd marriage as much).Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could also theorize that all the nice women had already married (or died in childbirth as the theme here seems to be) and all that were left were the bitter women. Dismas|^(talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy tales are also often based on folk tales and the like, many of which are full of symbolism and hidden meaning (or at least not noticed by all readers). These stories are often tales of morality and ethics, so the role of an evil (usually step) mother is perhaps a statement rather than an attempt at suggesting that the mother is evil. Additionally what 1 person considers to be a mean individual may, to another, be absolutely wonderful and kind. After all we can all be different to different people depending on how much we like/dislike the other person. In short, i'd recommend researching more into the story behind fairy-tales, because they make for interesting theories at times. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studies show that men are the victims of domestic abuse just as much as women are, they just don't report it as much. Wrad (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did the studies find out that they were being abused? Dismas|^(talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confidential, private surveys rather than just looking at the police reports. Most of the claims you'll find showing women are more abused are taken directly from police reports. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One such study was conducted by Suzanne Steinmetz and published in Victimology. It found that 12% of women and and 12% men in a sample of over 2000 had experienced abuse at the hands of their spouse. Violence in this study included throwing things, shoving, hitting, or using a knife or gun.

Let me also add that I have seen, personally, both abusive women and abusive men. I know that both exist. To think otherwise is a fairy tale in itself. Wrad (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, if you read Grimms' Fairy Tales, you'll see several tales about abusive husbands and several about abusive women. There isn't really an imbalance if you read through them all. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is, stories about mean fathers don't really resonate with people. Dads aren't supposed to be nurturing, so no one really finds it all that offensive when one isn't. Its not that dad's can't be nurturing, its just that the societal expectation isn't there, so it doesn't bother us as much as it does when a mother (or step mother) is mean. The mean stepmom makes us feel "ooohhh, poor girl... she doesn't have a female in her life to love her". No one really feels the same way about dads. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Poor Boy in the Grave is about a boy in a Cinderella-like situation. His parents are dead and he is adopted by abusive parents who make him do impossible tasks and beat him when he fails. Most of the abuse discussed in the story centers on the father figure. One notable difference is that there is no saving prince or fairy godmother for this boy. He dies. Males are pretty consistently denied fairy godmother figures in fairy tales. They're on their own. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are inheritance issues with a stepmother that make her a stock figure of social and economic danger. And there are basic genetic issues (The Selfish Gene) for a stepmother, who has no genetic connection with the heirs and may be expected to offer a candidate representing her own line (palace intrigues of Roman, Byzantine, Chinese and Ottoman empires). When a young male lion takes over the pride, his first act is to kill all the cubs and substitute cubs of his own: wicked stepfather. --Wetman (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To deviate a bit: why do so many teenagers seem to be involved in romances that never last? (Although I'm a tenager, I consider myself more sensible.) I mean, what's the point of wasting so much time? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you never know if its "going to last" until you are actually in it. Such predictions are impossible, and not limited to the young. Lots of adults are in many serial romantic relationships before they find a life partner... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

economics

what are the effects of stagflation to an economy? how can a country react to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.249.231 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty broad topic, and how to react to stagflation is a matter of debate between different schools of economic thought. So I'll just point you to our article on stagflation that covers this in some detail. --Delirium (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential election poll?

The nationwide total popular vote doesn't decide who becomes president, so why do organizations still do, and the media still report on nationwide polls? F (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness and stupidity, mostly, though it can also serve as propaganda for the candidate in the lead in the popular vote. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I've noticed that (at least this year), most of the media are reporting individual statewide polls, rather than nationwide ones. (Maybe they're learning.) — Michael J 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are international polls [4]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the media probably didn't even realize that there was an electoral college until 2000 Wrad (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, since "the media" have reported the electoral vote in every U.S. presidential election including the first. Edison (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard, every election, that there is an evil menace called the electoral college and that it was put in place by (fill in the evil Republican of the year) to undermine the democratic system of the United States. So, I wasn't surprised to hear about it in 2000. -- kainaw ™ 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot easier to conduct a national poll than to conduct separate polls in every state and add them all up. Fortunately, the site www.electoral-vote.com takes all of the individual state polls and adds them up to determine who is leading in the electoral vote count. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nationwide popular vote does give some indication of how the electoral college is likely to go; while it is possible for a president to win the electoral college without winning the absolute most popular votes, such an event has only happened twice (1876 and 2000) and two out of 55 elections is a pretty small number. Both of those elections were so close, and featured contested results, that were ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, so they could have easily gone the other way. The nationwide popular vote is likely to indicate who will win, since if the results are more than about 1-2% different, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that the electoral college would differ from it. Also, the nationwide popular vote can give an indication of how "down-ticket" races (House and Senate elections) are likely to go; if there will be a coattail effect from the winning candidate; or if the candidate can be seen as having a mandate from the electorate. Minority presidents often face more opposition to their policies because they don't have widespread popular support. If McCain or Obama wins the popular election, by a margin of say, 55%-40% it means something distinctly different than if the popular vote went, say, 45%-44%... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But 2000 was only 2 elections ago, and nobody expected that series of events then either. Given the short time since then, you'd think that people might not have forgotten so quickly that things can sometimes not turn out as expected. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexsmith

Maybe a silly question but it has bugged me for awhile.

If a goldsmith worked precious stones; a shoesmith made horseshoes; and blacksmith forged iron, what service did a sexsmith provide? Kidding aside and perhaps I should rephrase the question: what is the origin of this surname? --Kvasir (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seax is an old word for a knife or sword, still used to refer to a scimitar-type sword in the heraldic terminology of blazoning... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Kvasir (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying Reformed theologians

The upper section of http://www.reformationtheology.com/ contains the pictures of 6 Reformed theologians.

From left to right, they are

Jonathan Edwards
?
Martin Luther
?
John Calvin
Charles Spurgeon

Please identify the 2nd and 4th. --Psuit (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4 appears to be John Bunyan. Deor (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shot Monergism Books an email asking them what the theologians on their banner were, since they have almost all of the same people on theirs, except for John Calvin. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 is this picture of John Owen. We don't need no stinkin' e-mail. (And Calvin's there on the Monergism banner; he's just off by himself at the left.) Deor (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses.--Psuit (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]