June 21

What uses do former US Presidents make of the office space and staff that Congress provides them? NeonMerlin 01:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine a former US President would need someone to organise their schedule of speaking engagements, etc. and someone to handle the press. They would probably also need to services of an accountant and lawyer, although maybe not full time. You've probably heard about the enormous entourages celebrities take with them everywhere, a former US president is no different. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Truman, growing senile, would have "press conferences" for any reporters who showed up. Edison (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ For one thing (among many others), former Presidents have an enormous amount of correspondence, which lessens but hardly stops once they leave office and which can't necessarily be answered by their successor(s), (as might be the case for the rare instances of a former pope or a former hereditary monarch). Just historical inquiries, both professional and amateur (let alone press questions), would consume more time and attention than most people could handle alone.

I would suppose that some of the burden would be taken up the staffs at the presidential libraries that every recent ex-president has established, but the more-direct or less-historical correspondence (as well as telephone calls and other messages) would need to be handled, or at least filtered and sorted, by secretaries and other assistants.

(In fact, part of the burden on an ex-President is fund-raising, planning and management of the library itself.)

This would apply to a lesser extent to former Vice Presidents, depending on how much they participated in an administration and how much happened during that administration (for example,

Richard Cheney was a major player in the very-eventful presidency of George W. Bush.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Relatively few things happened" in Carter's administration? Well, it was only four years long, but there was a reason for that. There was the agreement between Israel and Egypt that he facilitated, which was a good accomplishment. There were the typical scandals, which were not too big of a deal. But then there was the Iran hostage crisis, which sank his Presidency, got Reagan elected, and turned Iran from an ally to an enemy. We are feeling the reverberations of both of those Middle East events today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked Ronald Reagan, but to say he turned Iran from an ally to an enemy is simply wrong. As for President Carter, the first treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons (

SALT II) and diplomatic relations with China should be on the list. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Good point about the treaties. And Reagan didn't turn Iran into an enemy, that was accomplished under the Carter administration. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but Carter handed them a ready-made excuse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the alienation of Iran was accomplished during the Eisenhower administration, when the CIA orchestrate the overthrow of a democratically elected leader in favor of the tyrannical "Shah" in 1953. The following events have just been "blowback" in intelligence-speak. Carter inherited the "Shah" and his nation's hatred of him. Edison (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can blame Vietnam on Ike too. One thing Carter did that Ike didn't do, though, was to invite the deposed and hated Shah into the U.S. That's what triggered the embassy takeover, and it's been downhill ever since. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescents and young adults always seem to base their identities on cultures associated with music genres such as hip hop, indie etc. Why is this and when do people stop doing this? 86.138.7.120 (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people never stop doing that. --88.110.22.156 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are cultures based on music or is music based on cultures? I'm not sure you can really separate the two like that. You can same the same things about fashion, language, etc. --Tango (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question, if I can have the temerity to rephrase it, and also involving a good deal of reading into it, is what accounts for taste, concerning choices in music among young adults? The identification with the particular type of music only becomes especially apparent when choices in apparel and other aspects of appearance are reflective of the musicians that are admired. The fans' enjoyment of the music is extended by apparel and other choices that express the enthusiasm for the music. But the crux of the question is why does that particular category of music appeal to this particular teenager, and I really don't know an adequate answer to that question. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like youff fashion, it serves the function of distinguishing them from older or less sexy sociological groups. Have you ever noticed that as soon as middle aged people start wearing a fashion, that means that its out of fashion. When people get older they have other demands on their money and other things on their mind, such as paying the mortgage and raising children. 78.147.137.38 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A local Manchester newspaper had a small story once. It claimed that an unnamed member of a well-known girl band had become popular on a user-generated pornographic website (Xtube-style), although she never revealed her face. How likely are stories like this to be true? And is this story in particular true, to the best of anyone's knowledge? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, published photos of a former female politician in Australia purported to show her in semi-nude poses; experts immediately identified them as being Photoshopped fakes (harder to do with video but not impossible)and the perpetrator soon admitted it. This type of "dirt" is routinely searched for against any well-known person, females especially. If rumours are the best they can do, chances are they could find nothing of substance.

In your particular case, no face shown = nobody viewing the videos would recognise her (barring distinguishing marks on the body and a viewer who had seen those). No name given = it could apply to any member of the band, so is even harder to disprove. Against this, numerous film stars and celebrities have been known to have home-made tapes leaked for public viewing, as have many non-celebrities (usually after an acrimonious break-up with the acting partner).

I'd score this story = unknown; likelihood of such stories to be true (a) without names and faces = 1% (b) with name given and face supposedly showing in tape = 4% (c) with link to video = 60%. - KoolerStill (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who has ever visited the Snopes website, it's clear that while urban legends and baseless rumors have always been with us, thanks to the internet they can be made up by anyone and proliferated around the world at light speed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't blood donation compulsory? Vimescarrot (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the benefit isn't deemed worth the reduction in civil liberties. In the UK we currently have enough blood to last us the next few days, and always do, so there is no need to force people to give blood (and that's without ever paying for blood, you can significantly increase quantity [at the expense of quality] of donations by paying people for them, so that would probably be chosen before forced donations). --Tango (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people don't want to give blood, and have the right to do so. 24.202.236.203 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the question. It change changes it to "Why do people have the right not to give blood?". --Tango (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rights come and go, though. Some countries have national service, sometimes permanently, sometimes intermittently. When it's in force, depending on how the law is worded, people may not have the right to say "No, thanks". Being a conscientious objector may cut no ice in some countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually want everyone's blood. In the UK, there are all sorts of factors that lead to extra tests of your blood, or it not being worth their bother taking the blood because the risk of undetected infection is considered too great. If you pay for blood, there is in incentive for people to lie and give blood that will infect someone. If you make giving blood compulsory for all the people who meet the right criteria, people who do not want to give blood will lie so that they do not meet the right criteria. The system runs on a lot of trust. 86.168.62.94 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it a right and what is a duty in a democracy is a matter of public opinion. If the public wants this - and if enough fuss is made - I'm sure that members of the government would be happy to pass a law making it so...but I don't think the public does want this. There are any number of things that would be a public good that people won't demand - how about we ban all tobacco sales? That would save more lives than mandatory blood giving. We do things like forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets...why not that? In the end - it's simply down to the demands of the masses - if they don't give a damn about blood donation shortages - then any politician that writes a law that forces them to do this would be massively unpopular and voted out of office at the next opportunity. My feeling is that enough people thought it should be a duty - then enough people would do it without being compelled to do so that a law wouldn't be needed anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want someone with a blood-borne disease such as HIV or Hepatitis donating blood, right? And there could be any number of medical conditions that preclude it, such as general ill health, anemia, or anything else. Then there are some who would object on religious grounds, just as some reject transfusions for themselves (and given the Arthur Ashe situation, they might be onto something). But it's primarily a civil liberties issue. Unless you're a convicted felon, the government does not own your body, you own it. The police can't even force you to submit to a mouth swab, let alone blood extraction, for DNA testing. For the general public, donating blood is strictly voluntary, and let's just hope it always stays that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of red herrings there. Presumably Vimescarrot's proposed law would give a pass to people's whose blood was not suitable, or divert that blood for non-transplant purposes. (Research? chemical feedstock?) A pass could also be given to the small number of people who are religiously opposed to blood transfusions. The whole question about who "owns" your body is silly too. Try that line next time the cops want to check your blood for alcohol.

Thanks for noticing that. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Perhaps

Synthetic blood will be usable before before the "blood shortage" hits the kind of crisis levels that would be needed to make voters tolerate a mandatory blood drive. APL (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, you do have the right to refuse to supply blood for that purpose in the UK. However you can then be charged and convicted for that instead and the penalties are similar to those for failing the test. Better to give the blood and hope you get lucky on the blood alcohol concentration. Better still of course to not drink and drive in the first place of course. Exxolon (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. at least, blood alcohol level is measured by a "breathalyzer", not by extracting blood. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and part of that privilege includes the requirement of providing the breath test as needed. If they actually extract blood in the U.K., that's not good. However, they don't have a 4th or 5th Amendment, at least not by that name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the initial roadside test is done with a breathalyzer, but I believe that to get a conviction this has to be backed up with a blood test back at the station - presumably this is more reliable. As for the "requirement of providing the breath test" - what happens when someone refuses to do so? Does some burly cop sit on them and hold their nose until they have to breathe out? Simply prosecuting them for refusing to take the test (which carries the same penalty) seems a lot easier to me. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to submit to the test is against the law. I think the term (which I couldn't recall yesterday) is "implied consent". The act of getting a driver's license means that you automatically consent to a breathalyzer when asked to do so. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that refusal to submit would, at the very least, result in losing your driving privileges. They wouldn't sit on you and force you to give the test. They would simply add that refusal to the charges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it used to be the case in the UK, and maybe still is, that one could opt to give a urine sample as an alternative to blood. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I do think you might be suffering from a slight case of

English common law. Also, a look at the Global Peace Index will show you that the US rates poorly for Human Rights when compared with the UK. (And very poorly when compared with NZ or Australia.Gwinva (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The US allegedly "rating poorly for human rights" fails to explain why so many people want to come here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it fails to have any relevance to immigration rates whatsoever. Algebraist 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting drastically off-topic here (but I think the OP is satisfied with the answer received, so I'll carry on), but do more people want to go to the US than the other countries mentioned (per capita)? The UK has a very high immigration rate. I don't think Australia does, but only because it has very strict limits on immigration, there are lots of people that would go there if they could. I have no idea what immigration is like in NZ. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I <3 off-topic. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as pointed out earlier, obvious exceptions would be made for anyone who is not suitable for blood donation. Thanks for all the responses, though. I think it answered my question...sort of. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the government has not right to stick a needle in your arm if you're a free citizen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The average civil liberties organization would agree with me. It's an invasion of your person. It's a violation of your body. Pray to goddess that viewpoint never changes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss your (or my) opinions, which is why I'm still refraining from using my counter-argument. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's invasive to have someone stick a needle in your arm against your will? Holy moly! Anyway, the question basically was why blood can't be taken forcefully from the average citizen, and I've attempted to answer that. It's not our opinions, it's a matter of law. Note that in Implied consent, a blood sample can in some states be forcefully taken, but only if the arrested person refuses to give the breathalyzer, and even at that there has to be probable cause that the driver was drunk. Refusing to give a breath sample is not protected by the Constitution, and only a looney would opt for a blood test, especially if he's committed other crimes, as the DNA could be used against him - as could a urine test, presumably, although that's not invasive like a blood test is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance of the blood sample for a drunk driver to this discussion... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That only under certain narrow conditions, i.e. under probable cause of breaking the law, or if your own life is in danger and you're unable to consciously give consent, does the state have any right or option to stick a needle into you. They can't just take stuff from your body anytime they feel like and without your consent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I already knew that. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "We have enough really anyway" and "There are other ways before we have to do that" is a fairly good answer. Thanks. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you arguing that the government should have the right to invade your body? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the power of the government to levy a new tax and word it so that the masses think they are paying less taxes. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing nothing. I'm asking why they don't - and I seem to have been answered already. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical answer: Politicians haven't thought of it yet (except perhaps in China). —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in China is it compulsory? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that it is sometimes compulsory of military personnel, but it is hearsay, and I am not sure if it is in fact true. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind the rumors of organ-harvesting from prisoners. —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of blinds in Texas Hold 'Em Poker: they are there to ensure at least some minimum amount of currency is bet by every player still within the game every round, no matter what their cards are like. What I don't understand is the need for a "small blind" and a "big blind". A "small blind" is half the amount of a "big blind", but must be doubled to a "big blind" anyway, excluding the event where the player placing it folds. Seeing as this distinction is so minor, why is it needed anyway? JIP | Talk 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be two blinds so that money always changes hands every hand. I think having both blinds the same size would be a bad idea because if everyone had rubbish hands you would end up with two people seeing the flop anyway and people winning purely due to getting a lucky flop isn't much fun. It's better for the big blind to win the small blind and then just move onto another hand. --Tango (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just how it's done. Twenty years or so ago, hold'em was played with antes and a single blind. Among other things, the two blinds encourage the small blind and big blind to stay in the game, regardless of their bad position. PhGustaf (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a CD player and some models of MP3 players, suppose one is 1 minute into Song 5 and presses the "previous" button, instead of going to the previous song (Song 4), the music player goes back to the beginning on the current song (Song 5). On the other hand, in Windows Media Player or an iPod Touch, when one presses "previous", the song skips to the previous song (Song 4). What explains this discrepancy? And why aren't all music players like WMP in regards to skipping songs? Acceptable (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reason for this discrepancy is someone decided that it should work like that. The reason all music players aren't like WMP in regards to skipping songs is that they were designed by different people, and they had different ideas about how it should work. I realize these may not be entirely satisfactory answers, but seriously, that's what it comes down to. There's no other reason for it: the technology involved doesn't necessitate one functionality over another, nor is there a clear standard for how these things should work. It's just a question of designing the functionality of the "previous" button, and as you can see, there are several approaches one can take. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical programming level, it comes down to when they advance the counter that tracks the number of the current song -- when the song starts or when it finishes. Where you can just choose a song by number, it has to count from the beginning and will give you the right one.- KoolerStill (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]