Sartre's The Search For Method comes to mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A Google or Google Scholar search for the keywords "disillusionment hero worship" will get you a substantial amount of stuff that ought to be useful. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I was able to glean quite a bit from some of your suggestions. Just to clarify, I'm most interested in examples where the heroes eventually remain viewed positively (though perhaps more realistically than before) despite their disillusioning qualities. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is womanizing among male politicians of great stature. There are shady dealings among sports stars that slightly tarnish their images. There are allegations an American swimmer inhaled a burning herb with the use of a bong. 2:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think most people still retain a lot of respect for

Martin Luther King, Jr., even after they know about the allegations of plagiarism, Communist sympathizing, and adultery. Pais (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

My Google search for celebrity cognitive dissonance reported 338,000 results.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, all of you! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Einstein religious views article and now I am confused. Did Einstein believe in God or did he not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can say is sort of. By his own statements, he was mostly

agnostic, that is he found his own belief in God to be indeterminate for the most part. In other statements, he seems to make clear that insofar as he believes in God at all, he believes in an impersonal God who may have created the universe in a general sense, or perhaps established the general framework of the Universe, but does not take an active role in it. In this sense, it his views may best be described as a sort of agnostic Deism. That is, he doesn't seem to take a firm position on whether or not God exists, but if God did exist, he doesn't believe that God takes an active role in working in the Universe. This view of God is actually explored rather well in fiction in Kurt Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan, known as the Church of God The Utterly Indifferent, which just about captures the idea. --Jayron32 06:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to chime in with Jayron, the whole question is not "did he believe in God" but "what did Einstein think 'God' meant?" Einstein did not believe in the same concept of God that most Jews, Christians, or Muslims believe in. For Einstein, "God" really means something like "the higher order of the universe, the way in which all is assembled." He would not have seen "Nature" and "God" and "the Universe" as being terribly different concepts at all. When he says something like "God doesn't play dice with the universe," what he's really saying is, "the universe is too elegant and perfect to be arranged in such a haphazard fashion." He doesn't believe in an interventionist God. He doesn't believe in a God that is an embodied, all-powerful, human-like entity. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins agrees with all the above in a section of his book The God Delusion. Dawkins discusses Einstein's disbelief at some length in order to debunk the arguments of certain believers that boil down to "A smart guy believed in God, so you should too." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the above argument. There is really no reason to debate whether Dawkins is generally right or wrong here. The only Dawkins reference was somebody mentioning it as a reference to the above description of Einstein's beliefs, which is really quite independent of whether you think Dawkins in general disproves God or whatever. Ref Desk is not a general debate forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed mention of armed security from Ishmael Khaldi#Edinburgh University Incident. None of the references say the security team were armed and, personally, I doubt Scottish (or British) law would permit personal security to carry weapons. However, would someone like to confirm that my feelings on this are true - that armed security is not allowed under the law? Astronaut (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but unlikely. Civilian bodyguards are not permitted to carry firearms in English/Welsh or Scottish law (although some individuals do carry personal protection weapons in Northern Ireland - see here). Some police officers - from the

Diplomatic Protection Group, for example - do go armed at times as part of their duties. Permission is also sometimes granted for foreign protection officers to carry arms when on duty in Britain as part of an official visit - see this article - although this does not appear to be standard practice. So if Mr. Khaldi was being protected by official UK or Israeli state security staff, it's not impossible they might have been armed. Without a source, though, I agree the article should not assert it as fact. Karenjc 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most scissors are not designed to cut metal, and doing so may be bad for the blade. We really wouldn't be able to help tell you if a pin or a staple is easier to bend if we don't know the thickness of either, or the metal they are both made of (though they are probably both some kind of steel). Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thickness of staples varies enormously, but they are designed to bend (which is why many of them have a rectangular section) whereas pins are not.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under UK law, are crossbows and archery equipment classified as firearms? Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. They're not mentioned in the Firearms Act 1968, which seems to be the modern foundational act - see Firearms_Act#United_Kingdom_legislation for more acts. Crossbowas are a controlled weapon, as set out in Laws_on_crossbows#United_Kingdom, notably in the Crossbows Act 1987. Not sure about bows & arrows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is awesome. I seriously would have expected there to have been a Crossbows Act 1387, but 1987? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern crossbows are a serious law enforcement issue in some countries - they are also controlled weapons in eastern Australia. Pistol crossbows cannot be imported - see here for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone killed his father with a crossbow recently in Toronto (in a library, no less). I don't know what kind of laws we have about crossbows here, but that was certainly unexpected. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Be careful what you allege about living people, eh? The victim's son was indeed arrested and charged with the murder, but as far as I can find out, the court case is still pending. --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, February 10, 2011.)

Are crossbows really quiet enough? I'd think, though obviously quieter, the swoosh and twang would still be well above a stage whisper. 109.128.101.244 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this blog, they're in use by the special forces of a number of countries. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the topic "interdependence" a quote was given by Tom Harris. I would like to know who this Tom Harris is. There are a number of different Tom Harris references in wikipedia and elsewhere, so would like to know for sure who this one is specifically, please. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.189.2 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ccertainly Thomas Anthony Harris. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information about the exile and marriage of

Given that the source for this information seems to be the website for a bed and breakfast in Upstate NY (hardly the most reliable of sources)... I would say the information should at least be challenged if not removed... I would suggest that you raise the issue at WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or WP:WikiProject France. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the source of this Sartre quote? It goes something like "Did I dream all of this? I remember vaguely the hideous reality"? I came across it in a comic by Robert Crumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.97.71 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Sartre's Les Mots, translated by Irene Clephane as Words: "Yet did I dream all this? I remember only vaguely the hideous reality". [3] --Antiquary (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Wonderful! Thank you!66.207.97.71 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of "What is the difference between humor and wit? Humor is when something is unexpectedly inappropriate; wit is when something is unexpectedly appropriate."69.123.168.93 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the case that US Military Bases in foreign countries are technically US land? If so who has legal jurisdiction over this land? --CGPGrey (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt this is true in most cases. I'm sure it was never true of US bases in Britain for example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States does not have absolute sovereignty over U.S. military bases in foreign countries. Issues of jurisdiction vary from country to country and base to base and are governed by

U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement.) Such agreements are usually controversial in the host country. Marco polo (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Depends upon the treaty that the two countries signed. See our

embassy article notes, it's a common misconception that a US embassy in a foreign country "is on US soil". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Good to know. I'm glad to have cleared up that misconception. Thanks. --CGPGrey (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the Extraterritoriality article doesn't mention this case. i.m.canadian (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US embassies and consuls on foreign soil are considered US territory, and embassies have US Marine Corps guards. Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the citation above mentions, your first statement is incorrect. Please cite sources on the Reference Desk when trying to provide answers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what citation are you referring to? Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to our

Embassy article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The status of embassies and consulates are covered by two Vienna Conventions; Di consular relations.

These grant certain powers to the visiting nation with respect to visiting staff, locally employed staff, visiting nationals and others. Inevitably US embassies try to throw their weight around when it comes to actually complying with some of the obligations, an interesting one being the payment of traffic related fines.

ALR (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See

U) 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Diego Garcia does not contain either an Embassy or a consulate... Vienna doesn't apply.

ALR (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In countries where adults having sex with minors is illegal, have there been any cases of an underage person raping an adult? And what was the outcome of the case; was the adult guilty of an offense even though it had been completely against their will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.29.254.164 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most places, statutory rape (what you're calling 'underage rape') only applies to supposedly consensual sex - it's called rape because minors are not considered legally competent to consent even if they agree to the act. when a minor commits forcible rape on an adult (which does happen) the minor is guilty of rape, and there is no statutory rape charge against the adult (since there's no question of the adult coercing the minor into the act). --Ludwigs2 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, you completely miss the question. The guy knows about statutory rape - any time an adult has sex with a minor, regardless of consent. Ah, but rape is sex too: what if a minor rapes an adult. That's sex. So, did the adult just commit statutory rape? Moreover, you miss that the OP has a devious, devious mind. Obviously no prosecution would ever charge, say, a college student who was raped by a seventeen year old high school student, with rape (by the adult - who was in fact, for real, not just statutorily, raped). But then it becomes a defense! "Yes, we had sex but - actually, he raped me." What?! "Why didn't you report it". "Well, to be honest, I kind of liked it." Now what, - Ludwigs - Now what. Maybe there isn't enough evidence for a rape conviction of the youth, but this would be enough to get off the hook for statuory rape (by the adult) if the two simply say it was actual rape by the minor... This guy, the OP, he's a devious guy.... 109.128.101.244 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the asterisks - this thing kept getting flagged as "potentially disruptive" and I couldn't commit the edit. ANyone who is able can feel free to change them back to rape, sex, and devious respectively (in my desperation), deleting this note. 109.128.101.244 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

109's comment de-asterisked. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there has. Googling 17 year old rapist yielded this case on the first page of results. As our Statutory rape article notes, there is presumed coercion in a statutory rape case, whereas if a minor rapes an adult then obviously the adult is not coercing the minor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Tuttle, I think you show a shallow legal understanding "there is presumed coercion in a statutory rape case". Not at all. It's that, legally, a minor cannot give consent, and therefore did not. Can you give consent by raping the adult? No, you can't, because you are underage. In fact, in a rape by a minor, the adult has also had sex with the minor despite a lack of consent on the part of the minor -- the minor's active raping of the former notwithstanding! Therefore, in fact, what must happen legally (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) is that the two rape each other! The younger rapes the older in fact, while the older rapes the younger (who cannot consent to the sex they just had) in law. Obviously no one would actually prosecute the older for htis... or would they? U-S-A.109.128.101.244 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in the part of our statutory rape article where it talks about two underage teenagers having sex with each other who are in an intimate relationship (boyfirend/girlfriend) it says : "n some jurisdictions (such as California), if two minors have sex with each other, they would both be guilty of engaging in unlawful sex with the other person (misdemeanor instead of felony).[13][14] Most jurisdictions, as previously stated, consider the act itself to be prima facie evidence of guilt, as any consent between partners, even if freely given, does not meet the standard of law as it is given by a person the law has defined as being incapable of giving consent. The accused in these cases normally has no defense." So, obviously justice is not only blind, but stupid. 109.128.101.244 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the first paragraph of Statutory rape before typing all that, where it notes that coercion is presumed because a minor can't give consent? Can you cite a single case that agrees with your convoluted, ridiculous premise? Please cite sources here on the Reference Desk when attempting to answer a question, rather than ranting based on the belief that you have brought here without reading what others have posted. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a shame that after asking a question obviously looking for a global answer ("In countries where...") the bulk of the above answers talk about Statutory rape, a pretty much uniquely American view of things. Even the Statutory rape article clearly emphasises this right at the top. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this question is asking about a form of necessity defense. --Anonymous, 06:33 UTC, February 10, 2011.

Yes, such cases exist. The age of consent in the UK is 16. Here is the case of a 15-year-old boy convicted of raping his teacher. The boy was convicted and sent to prison. The teacher was not charged with any offence, and successfully sued her employers for endangering her. Karenjc 10:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a 13-year-old boy who beat and raped a 20-year-old woman, again with no suggestion that his victim encountered any legal difficulty because of their respective ages. The law may sometimes be an ass, but not always, it seems. Karenjc 15:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this I think, my credentials; I work in law enforcement in the UK, so this is my area of expertise :) First up it is important to understand that whilst law is a set of objective criteria our application of the law is subjective, and influenced by society and public perception. It is true that objectively under law it might seem that an older individual being forced to have sex with a minor could be prosecuted for statutory rape. However there are two caveats. The first caveat is a legal one, which is that most stat. rape laws are worded to presume coercion because a minor is legally not able to give consent, the important word is "presume" - if it can be proven that coercion did not take place (as in the example we are discussing) then stat. rape does not apply. The second consideration is public perception; you would have trouble believing a woman could rape a man. Similarly it is usually tacitly assumed in society that it is men that mostly abuse children. So a male child having forcible sex with an adult is much much more likely to be seen as rape than sex with a minor. I challenge you to find a reverse example where a female child physically forces a man to have sex with her (there is actually one example I know of in the history of crime, bonus points if you know it :)). The combination of these distinctions means that the right course of action happens :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the reason the adult rape victim has not committed any offence is the lack of any actus reus on their part, as they have not engaged in a voluntary act (it is not the status of "having sex" that rape generally requires, it is the voluntary act of penetration). Proteus (Talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus is correct. Strict liability offenses require a volitional act. When a crime requires neither an actus reus nor a mens rea, it is called an absolute liability offense. These offenses, sometimes called regulatory offenses, tend only to impose a civil penalty or fine. An example of an absolute liability offense would be certain environmental laws concerning chemical spilling. The prosecution need not prove a prohibited act, but the existence of a prohibited circumstance: spilled chemicals. No one cares how it happened and liability is imposed based solely on evidence or admission of the spill. An adult raped by a minor would not be guilty of statutory rape because of the lack of a volitional act. Gx872op (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, no bonus points here but I am thoroughly intrigued. What case are you referring to? Karenjc 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island's full name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and MS, KY, VA and PA are the "the commonwealth of". Are there any other states with odd, full names? --CGPGrey (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link has a related list of what the states used to be called before statehood. Also a little related: you will enjoy our article

List of U.S. state name etymologies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The article on the Northwest Ordinance notes that along with Michigania and Illinoia, Jefferson proposed such state names as Chersonesus, Sylvania, Assenisipia, Metropotamia, and Polypotamia. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as current names are concerned, there are only the five that the original poster mentioned. Well, unless you consider the name "

Note: It is MA that is a commonwealth; not MS. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is East Virginia? --84.61.179.231 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, Virginia is "east Virginia". Virginia seceded, and the western portion seceded from Virginia, i.e. it rejoined the Union. They had to call it something, and West Virginia was as good as anything. There being a war on, they didn't have much spare time to ponder a more creative nickname, such as "Almost Heaven" or "Greater Wheeling" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a Language Desk question (I think). What was an Ottoman mürur tezkeresi (internal passport) called in Arabic? (I'm trying to make sense of the Hebrew name - תזכורת מרור, as I found it in a newspaper from the 1880's.)

talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Murur" can be "passport" in Arabic, and "tezkeresi" looks like it should be "tadhakarat" in Arabic, which can be "ticket". "tadhkir" is "reminder", which matches the Hebrew version. I guess "مرور تذكرة" is the equivalent? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, further Googling suggests "تذكرة مرور", the other way around, is a traffic ticket, but that's obviously modern Arabic. The same words can easily mean "passage certificate" or something similar. But which order is the equivalent of the Turkish passport? I'm not sure...I don't even know enough about Turkish grammar to make a comparison. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and from playing around with Google Translate for the Hebrew, it must be a transliteration of the technical Ottoman term, which happens to turn into meaningful Hebrew words. It's sort of a coincidence that "mürur" looks like "bitter" in Hebrew ("מרור") and Arabic ("mareer", "مرير")...I say sort of, because the Arabic words actually come from the same root (according to Edward Lane's Arabic-English lexicon), so I guess they do in Hebrew too. I don't know how a verb having to do with passing over things is related to an adjective meaning bitter, but I'm sure it made sense, once upon a time. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

talk) 19:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please, don't use Google Translate to answer Reference Desk questions, for obvious reasons. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The '-si' looks like a possessive suffix, so it is literally "mürür [its] tezkere" - presumably "travel its ticket" i.e. "travel document". This is the usual way to express attributive relations in Turkish. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I made a mistake in the original post - it should say "תזכרות מרור", thus it is the plural of "תזכרת מרור", which fits the above suggestion "تذكرة مرور" exactly.

I was reading an article in the Economist that said "western governments are uunder pressure from the bond markets to rein in spending". I am tring to understand what this statement means, how is this pressure exerted? Any help is appreciated,I am largely ignorant of macroeconomics, Thanks -- 99.20.119.244 (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bond markets buy and sell bonds. If a government needs cash to do something, they float a bond, which requires someone to buy it. You then repay the person, along with some interest, for the value of the bond. If people who buy and sell bonds don't want to buy the government bonds, then the government needs to pay more interest on their bonds. This means the government can't use that money to do other stuff, like pay the police and army and schools. Insofar as several European countries have come dangerously close to defaulting on their bond obligations (i.e., saying "screw it" and not paying the bonds off), that makes investors REALLY nervous, making it harder for governments to sell their bonds. So, that means that the government needs to find ways to spend less money, to convince investors they aren't going to default, and thus will buy their bonds. --Jayron32 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I understand, Investors in government debt want a higher rate of return when they perceive a higher risk of default. So the bond market is basically functioning like a credit rating, it is dictating what interest rates governments can get on their bonds/loans, more credit worthy governments can pay less interest on their bonds because they are seen as less of a risk. Thanks! -- 99.20.119.244 (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the risk of inflation is more important than the risk of default. In the case of the USA, for example, it sells bonds in dollars but it also has the power to print dollars, so there is really no possibility of it defaulting. This applies to any country that maintains its own currency and sells bonds denominated in that currency. The problem in the Euro zone is that those countries don't have the right to print euros. Looie496 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but debasing your own currency to pay off bonds you would otherwise default on has roughly the same effect on the bond markets; since investors aren't going to buy a bond today if they expect it to be worth substantially less in the future because the government had to debase its currency to pay it off, which means they will demand higher interest rates to compensate, which brings us back to the fact that the bond markets can still put pressure to cut back on spending as an option over deliberatly debasing the currency. Even countries that control their own currency still can't get around that... --Jayron32 18:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what I was trying to say. Thank you for saying it more clearly. Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debasing your own currency to pay off bonds you would otherwise default on is much more likely to result in a slower and less complete reaction by the bond market than an out-right default. Some bond holders just won’t notice, or care. Note that the market as a whole may, over a period of time, act similarly, but the short-term result is likely to be very different. cf Devaluation and Credit risk DOR (HK) (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]