Miscellaneous desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 15[edit]

US state secession[edit]

If it's apparently so difficult for Greece (or another country) to exit the eurozone, would such a complication of matters exist similarly for a US state that would entertain secession from the US? Presumably, an independent state would desire a non-US based currency. And moreover, in a non-hypothetical point of order, when Sudan split and other countries form/restructure, why isn't this cause for similar upheaval? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sudan was already in a state of upheaval. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the Sudanese pound to the South Sudanese pound is not nearly as much of a drop as would be going from the euro to a new drachma. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greece leaving the Eurozone represents a single act: Changing of the Euro as a currency for a new currency. Greece still maintains much of its own sovereignty; it still has a military, a working government bureaucracy, a social welfare system, ambassadors, etc. etc. If say, Missouri, decides to withdraw from the U.S., it has to come up with ALL of that stuff on its own, in addition to the currency issue. Take the Greece situation and multiply it by, oh, a billion to arrive at the practical difficulties faces with a U.S. state formally seceding. With a case like South Sudan; you've basically got a region and a people which were marginalized by their former national government (which, on the balance, was on the "margins" anyways). With South Sudan, the people there were already in the basement; they didn't have far "down" to fall by declaring their independence; and given the way that the people there were treated, there is a good arguement that there was a huge upside to independence. The same could not be said for Greece or for a U.S. state, who have a LOT farther to fall if they undertook the same movement. --Jayron32 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Missouri seceding would be all that difficult:

1) They could probably just go right on using the US dollar. Other nations do, even if they have their own "official" currency.

2) US states have their own working government bureaucracy and social welfare systems, they just get a part of the funding from the Feds. They could just increase their tax rate to cover paying it all on their own.

3) I don't see why it would need a military. Who is going to attack a nation wholly inside the US ?

4) They might want ambassadors, but wouldn't really need them right away.

5) The bigger issues, I'd think, would be how to divide the current US national debt and what becomes of military equipment in the state (especially nuclear weapons). StuRat (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. States can't ~~succeed~~ secede because it's blatantly unconstitutional (Missouri kinda dabbled in that once before and it didn't turn out so well), and there was a war to prove it. The "secession" from various organizations depends entirely on the covenants that bind them in the first place, or to put it more bluntly, raw power. Britain was quite adamant that the U.S. didn't have the right to sovereignty but yet another war decided that one too. If you want a legal explanation look at the governing convention that creates the organization. If you want a realistic answer, look at power. Shadowjams (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want clarity, don't write "succeed" where you mean "secede". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing secedes like success." :-) StuRat (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

WELL EXCUSE MY MISSPELLING. Sheesh. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They already have their own army and an air force: Missouri National Guard. As well a a nuke site near Kansas City (Whiteman Air Force Base). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A state cannot unilaterally secede, but nothing in the Constitution or Texas v. White (the relevant Supreme Court decision) prevents a mutually-agreed-upon secession. --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the U.S. constitution forbid secession, there is also no way a U.S. state could end up in a predicament similar to that of Greece that would lead to an interest in secession. The crucial differences between euro-zone members and U.S. states are the following: 1) There is some legal precedent for bankruptcy of a U.S. state. Arkansas defaulted on its debt in 1933. The federal government covered its budget for the next couple of years until the state regained fiscal stability. No exit from the dollar or the union was required. 2) This was so because hardly anyone in the United States questions the right of any state to federal support in an emergency. There is a shared national identity and a belief in mutual aid among states, unlike among the nations of Europe. On the other hand, there is also virtually no difference among states in retirement ages, eligibility for benefits, and so on, all of which are meager by European standards. Thus, there is not much room for resentments like those of the Germans over the ability of Greeks to retire at an earlier age. By contrast, for example, Americans really have no right to retire, though some manage to make arrangements for retirement. 3) No exit from the dollar would be required or desired because the openness and integration of the US labor market relieves the pressure for devaluation that exists in southern Europe. If a state's wages are uncompetitive, businesses will relocate to other states, as they can in the EU. However, the big difference is that workers can also relocate to where businesses are hiring or opportunities for self-employment exist. While this is theoretically true within the EU, cultural and linguistic barriers impede the migration of labor, unlike in the US. 4) For all of these reasons, a state in financial trouble would have no interest in secession. Likewise, there would probably be overwhelming support from residents other states for keeping the insolvent state in the union, both for sentimental patriotic reasons and (among the elites) as a result of a hardheaded calculation that the exit of a state from the integrated market of the United States and the likely resulting devaluation of assets in that state would cost more than supporting the state while it undertook fiscal reforms. Marco polo (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things... states may default on debt but they cannot declare bankruptcy. There's been discussion about creating such a procedure but it's fraught with constitutional problems. Second, there are other constitutional issues that make the States different than Greece. They cannot make their own currency, for instance, or impose tariffs or duties, or set immigration policy. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the Constitution does it say that new states can join, but states can never leave? The Federalists said there was no leaving, but they approved secession of , initially 11 states from the Articles of Confederation, which called for "perpetual union" unlike the strict language of the Constitution. There is an 1869 Supreme Court ruling Texas v. White that says "no secession right",for unilaterally leaving the union, but lots of the Court's rulings like on Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson have been rejected by later courts. And that ruling allowed for the possibility of secession "through consent of the states." Many times in the last century parts of other countries have become independent or have affiliated with other countries, sometimes by military conquest, sometimes by revolution. Have there been cases since 1900 where part of a country seceded, and was there a law against it in the country, or at lease no constitutional provision explicitly allowing it, which I suspect is the case here? Did some of the original 13 colonies have explicit passages in their ratification documents claiming a right to secede? Edison (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, according to the supreme court, the part of the Constitution you seek is the phrase that says "In order to form a more perfect union,"

See Texas v. White for the details. APL (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no express prohibition in the constitution forbidding succession and in fact I've read that some of the first states did reserve some "right" to secede (although I can't find this in any mainstream history books I've been looking through). However today it's fairly well accepted that secession is unconstitutional, although there are those that disagree. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Passaro[edit]

"In 1985, Passaro was found dead floating in the Anderson Reservoir with $10,000 in his pocket. Foul play was initially suspected but was never confirmed."

There is no way in hell that statement is true. Meredith Hunter's mother managed to get $10,000 out of the Rolling Stones. Her name is Altha May ANDERSON. Obviously if the statement is true then Passaro was murdered by someone who could afford to spend $10,000 on an ironic murder.

Can someone either:
a) Find a RELIABLE source for the statement, or.
b) Remove the statement.--Echetus Xe 00:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Houston Chronicle article verifying the Anderson Reservoir location, but the only sources I could find for the money were mirrors of Wikipedia, forum posts obviously sourcing from Wikipedia, and one dodgy amateur website. It sounds like someone's idea of a "wouldn't it have been cool if". 131.111.255.9 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That entry was posted 2 1/2 years ago,[1] by an IP and without anything resembling a citation. If there's a citation for the murder, it could be used as a citation, and the stuff about the money could be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff, I guess it was just a coincidence and the $10,000 in his pocket (must have had pretty big pockets) was baloney. Thanks!--Echetus Xe 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go Train schedule[edit]

Is there schedule of the GO train like Toronto-Barrie, Toronto-Niagara Falls, Toronto-Windsor etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.140 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page help you any? Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get to Windsor on a GO Train, you'd have to take VIA. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

READ![edit]

Is it a good idea to make your own series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) ~Tailsman67~[reply]

How could you possibly expect an answer to such a vague question? Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....perhaps with an equally vague answer? But you must admit, the OP was bold in asking it. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still need an answer.~Tailsman67~

No. Staecker (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO!?~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, yes. Staecker (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes. If it gets your creative juices flowing, or if it gives you something to do when you're bored, then do it. Just have a realistic mindset about where it's going to go (probably nowhere, in terms of being picked up or published) before you set off. --McDoob AU 93 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of series? TV series? Anime? Graphic novel? Series of books? Video game series? World Series? Series of resistors? Ceres goddess of harvests? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a good idea to read the guidelines at the top of the page regarding posting a question, and to read any warnings one might have received on one's talk page about potential blocks. But those are opinions and we don't do those here. --LarryMac | Talk 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks McDoob I already have a plan and a name.@ Colap:TV series, Anime, Graphic novel(if possible), Series of books(Manga), Video game series,and World Series.~Tailsman67~

Well what are you waiting for? You don't actually seem to need us. Go for it! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys,I wish I can tell you guys the storyline but they won't let me,Hero!~Tailsman67 of the Wikia~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and please read your talk page for some friendly suggestions. --McDoob AU 93 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it isn't a series of increasingly vague questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, I say go for it. TheGrimme (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I covered that in my "friendly suggestions" to the IP. --McDoob AU 93 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purines and how to combat them in the human body.[edit]

I am interested in dealing with treating the food before it is to be consumed. Because all that is on the market is dealing with purines (Gout) in the body after the food is comsumed. Why not treat the food before it is consumed. It would stand to reason that if you eleminate the purines which cause Gout. A person would be far better off.

l ask this as l have been unable to chat directly with a food chemist. Maybe l could get someone in the industry interested in developing something that would either eleminate or drastically reduce the amount of purines in a food that a person would consume.

As l am only an Architect. I just do not know anything about chemistry and food. Hope you can help.

Greg Martin _{e-mail address removed} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.120.2 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the only way to remove purines would be to produce purine-free foods ... that is, artificial foods. Since some of the most common trigger foods for gout are natural (red meat and shellfish, among others), it would be difficult to remove the purines without totally altering them. I've spoken with doctors about it (original research, I know), and one of the easiest ways to control the intake of purines is to control the intake of foods containing them. --McDoob AU 93 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that foods containing purines also tend to be unhealthy in other ways, like causing heart disease. So, if you remove the purines you may end up killing people who would have otherwise reformed their diet (when they contracted a painful gout condition), and thus would have avoided or postponed heart disease, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See All About Gout and Diet from the UK Gout Society. The notable exception to StuRat's comments above appears to be oily fish, which we are exhorted to eat on a regular basis[2] but is also a trigger for gout. Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no more beef?[edit]

just curious, am I right in thinking that if no-one raised cattle (instead chickens, goats,sheep,pigs, etc.), the rate of global warming would be significantly reduced? Can anyone confirm if cows contribute more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined (or something like that, I can'tremember where I read this). Heck froze over (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find such simplistic pronouncements to be almost universally wrong. The idea that cattle specifically and singularly are responsible for global warming (it's such an easy fix! Just stop eating hamburgers and start eating chicken sandwiches!) seems, on the face of it, silly. Which is not to say that raising cattle does not create its own environmental problems, but that doesn't mean that reducing the problems that cattle create to terse little solutions is wise either. --Jayron32 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep, goats and pigs are nearly as bad as cattle in creating greenhouse gases. A total figure I've seen is 30% of greenhouse gases from grazing animals. Don't know about chooks. (Do birds burp and fart?) An added issue is the forest clearing to create grassland for grazing animals. Eating meat IS a greenhouse issue. But I like meat..... HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While meat consumption has significant environmental impact in general, cattle is significantly worse than sheep, goats and pigs. The last figure I have seen is from the FAO, claims 18% of GHG emissions from the lifetock sector as a whole (not just grazing animals). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how much of that is incidental to raising cattle, and how much is directly caused by the cattle? In other words, does that 18% represent greenhouse emissions of cow farts, or does it represent the greenhouse gases emited by cars and trucks which transport meat, by factories which process meat, etc. etc. If it is the former, the OP may have a point. If it is primarly caused by transportation and processing, then the problem would go away if we converted to non-emiting energy sources. Without knowing what that 18% represents, it is meaningless to understanding the nature of this issue. --Jayron32 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about worldwide figures but you can see some NZ figures here which are detailed enough to seperate the various forms (as the refs show, agricultural includes stuff like fertiliser but not transport). [3] [4] NZ livestock are of course mostly grass fed. I'm pretty sure only a small percentage comes from cow farts, a much larger percentage is in burps. A big concern of course, as is perhaps exemplified by the NZ figures, they emit a lot of methane which is worse then carbox dioxide from a greenhouse perspective.Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation costs are minimal. I have an old SciAm magazine with an article on the subject. Here are some numbers it gives. Producing a pound of beef in a feedlot generates the equivalent of 15 pounds of CO2. It would only take 4 ounces of CO2 to transport the same amount of food from Peru to the United States.

As to where the greenhouse gases come from, for U.S.-grown, non-organic feedlot beef, the composition is given as 32% direct emissions (farts/burps and decomposing manure), 14% fertilizer production, 14% "general farm production", 40% forgone absorption of greenhouse gases due to the production of feed crops.

What is "forgone absorption of greenhouse gases due to the production of feed crops" and why is it a positive term and not a negative one? -- 203.82.66.206 (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeveloped grasslands or forests act as carbon sinks. They absorb CO2, which turns into plant matter, and, when the plant dies, some of that carbon stays in the soil. High-quality grassland soil may be 25% carbon by weight to the depth of 1 meter. If you convert that grassland into a farm to grow corn (which will be fed to cows), levels of carbon go down. An undisturbed temperate grassland averages 240 tons of carbon per hectare. A typical cropland averages 80 tons per hectare.[5] With use, the amount of carbon keeps going further down due to erosion. I'm not sure if "forgone absorption" is the correct term to use here, but that's essentially what's meant by the statement. --Itinerant1 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect the figure to be higher for grass-fed beef. Raising cows on corn feed is more efficient than cutting down rainforests to make room for pasture. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the alarming no more beef title, here's an article about growing meat from stem cells on an industrial scale: Grow your own meat. Card Zero (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the gases cattle emit, there is the issue of land use. Land used to grow corn to feed to cattle in intensive feedlot operations could be used to grow food for the direct consumption of humans. A veggie bookwriter states that it takes 27 times the fuel to produce so many calories from cattle than from soybeans. Granted, the beef is far tastier for many consumers, and the protein is high quality, though with the burden of unhealthy fat. Edison (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you add a new step in the food chain, your production efficiency goes down. Growing plants, feeding them to farm-raised animals, and then eating those animals is less efficient than eating plants directly. This is the reason why we don't grow any land-based predators on the industrial scale - they are often very tasty, but just too expensive to make sense economically. This is also why fish is expensive - most commercially exploited large species of fish are predators.

Our ancestors got out of this paradox because they either relied on wild-caught animals, or raised them on plants that they could not themselves eat. For example, raising grass-fed beef makes sense if you have a lot of grassland, you can't eat grass, and you don't have the technology to use that land to grow anything that you actually can eat. (Because the unique structure of the gastrointestinal tract of cattle allows them to extract calories from grass, while your own GI tract sees useless indigestible matter.) This is obviously no longer the case today.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, and in many other places in the world, this is still the case, sometimes because of lack of technology, but mainly where the altitude and rainfall dictate that land will grow little else other than grass. Dbfirs 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your combination of cold climate and 100 inches of annual rainfall is quite unusual. In a warmer climate, you'd have excellent conditions for growing rice. It is much more common for the animal meat to be produced instead of crops because of the lack of institutions to support efficient high-tech agriculture. --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that unusual for northern Europe, and it's certainly too cold for rice, but I agree with your statement about most meat and agriculture. Dbfirs 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles[edit]

I've read that in order to be beatified, a person has to perform at least one miracle after their death. The thing I've always wondered is, when a miracle happens, how can people be so sure that it's because of this particular person, and not someone else? JIP | Talk 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983. Basically, there's a process to get a virtuous person named a Venerable, which allows people to start praying to him or her for a miracle. People begin praying for a miracle, and when one happens (typically a miraculous cure of a sick person who has prayed to the Venerable) they can beatified (also, martyrs don't need a miracle attributed to them to be beatified. Everyone needs a couple miracles to be made a saint, though). Buddy431 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the thing is, a miracle can be attributed to a specific person if there's evidence that it happened because of prayer to him/her, presumably by the miracle happening to the same people who prayed to the person and in quick succession of the prayer? JIP | Talk 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Catholic church may have the world's most elaborate and impressive protocol for committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ignoring others flaws too, like being officially monotheistic but accepting that saints performing miracles. 88.8.67.30 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The saints are not considered to perform the miracle through their own innate power, but rather to intercede with God to have it performed by Him. 67.185.1.213 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and Saint#Roman Catholicism, Congregation for the Causes of Saints#Current process, Beatification, Intercession of saints#Roman Catholic views & the earlier linked Canonisation#Catholic Church, not surprisingly addresses all the technical details. It's perhaps worth remembering a saint is simply someone who is believed to be in heaven. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some regard mere birth to be a miracle.--85.211.164.72 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And some regard Smokey Robinson to be a miracle. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is so miraculous about birth, anyway? It has happened billions of times, and that's just for humans. There's almost nothing more mundane than birth. But anyway...that's getting far away from the original question... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have a very low bar for the miraculous. I don't know whether to scorn them or envy them at this. How much more fun must their world be, when everything is divine? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in EO,[6] the term "miracle" originates from "to wonder at". There are plenty of things to wonder at in the world, whether you believe in divine intervention or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]