Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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 18

HMSAS no more?

Why did South Africa switch to SAS from HMSAS when they gained independance? --The Dark Side 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. Prior to independence the British monarch was the the head of state. Clio the Muse 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I though South Africa was like Canada and Australia but it isn't. --The Dark Side 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not now; but it was at one time, in that all three had a common head of state in the reigning British monarch. I should add, just in case you do not already know this, that HMSAS means His-or Her-Majesty's South African Ship. Clio the Muse 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on the South African Navy says, HMSAS changed to SAS on 31 May 1961 when South Africa became a republic. Obviously a republic can't have a "Her Majesty's..." anything. -- Arwel (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between Afghanistan & Pakistan

I´ve read the article on Foreign Relations of Afghanistan + Pakistan, but was wondering if Afghan-Pakistani relations were always strong and cordial from the 1980s -> present day. My question is if the two countries were always/generally very good neighbors for the period from the Soviet invasion to the US invasion of Afghanistan, and is it correct to say that Pakistan was Afghanistan´s strongest ally (and vice-versa) in this period or was there any other country more strongly attached to either of them? Thanks. ==Alex==

No, Pakistan was the worst enemy of Soviet-controlled Afghanistan, and is perhaps again their worst enemy again now. They provided the predecessors of Al Queda with weapons to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Now, Pakistan provides bases and weapons and recruits for Al Queda and the Taliban to fight the Afghan government. One difference is that the government is now "officially opposed" to those things. However, Pakistan doesn't actually take any action sufficient to stop them, and, in many cases, parts of the government actively support the terrorists. The only period (after the Soviet invasion) where they were strong allies was when the Taliban was in control. StuRat 05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, having read the page on the Foreign relations of Pakistan you will have noted that Pakistan was the chief supporter of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation. In general, it is in Pakistan's interest to ensure an Afghanistan that is not in the hands of a hostile power, or one that threatens the country's security. It is completely wrong to suggest that the present government in any way supports the Taliban or other terrorists organisations. President Musharraf continues to be active in this regard, though his freedom of action is in part circumscribed by political and ethnic tensions within Pakistan itself. Perhaps the most significant factor here is the fiercely independent Pashtun tribesmen, who live on both sides of the border, and share little if any of the political outlook of the goverenment in Lahore, and have proved almost impossible to control; a problem that the British authorities were only too well aware of in the past. Clio the Muse 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must strongly disagree with the statement that "It is completely wrong to suggest that the present government in any way supports the Taliban or other terrorists organisations". They most definitely do, as in an indirect payment to Al Queda of a half million dollars: [1]. It would be more accurate to say that there are various factions within the Pakistan government, and in particular within it's military and security apparatus, which do support both the Taliban and Al Queda. StuRat 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And I remember Pervez Musharraf and Hamid Karzai sharing a sumptuous lunch with their common friend. Moonwalkerwiz 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite! Clio the Muse 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan definitely has leaned towards supporting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan. It is well known that they took a lot of the US arms sent for the Soviet-Afghan war and made sure they were channeled to the most radical of the mujahadeen. Pakistan has always sat in a very precarious geopolitical situation and has exploited that beautifully over the course of the Cold War and the War on Terror, working with the West in some capacities while covertly supporting many things the U.S. would not like (i.e. the Taliban; and I find it nearly impossible to believe that the Pakistani government did not play some role in the Khan proliferation affair). --24.147.86.187 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Average salary in Japan

Hi,

For a software profession with 5 years experience there was an offer for 5.5 million yen per annum.

All expenses he has to bear: Food (indian, self prepared) , house (apartment min 2 rooms), conveyence (public), tax, he has to accommodate himself.

Can anyone tell me how much a minimum yen required to survive? 1. If he prefers inside city residence 2. if he goes to sub-urb

City, I dont remember now. But I would appreciate if I get a range.

Thanks Slmking 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends of course on where he will live: Tokyo and Osaka have the reputation of being very expensive. But according to this link, the average cost of living is "70,000 to 100,000 yen per month, including rent, utilities and food expenses", so it should be doable. Skarioffszky 12:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen should the United Kingdom .. deunite?

There's been a few articles in the UK recently on things such as the unfairness of devolution for England, some Scottish religious leader saying he would back Scottish independence and the SNP are aiming for a referendum on the issue in a few years, and there's talk of only Scottish taxs being spent above the border, and English taxs below the border. It seems like there is a slow moving - but profound - economic and political divorce between our (constituent) countries, and our societies; which becomes ever clearer during sporting events.
But what would be the consequences of a dissolution of the Union?
Would England be given the Security Council seat?
What about Wales? Surly they’re too small to be fully independent? And Northern Ireland?
What about the monarchy?
Or would the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland simply be The United Kingdom of England and Wales (and Northern Ireland)?
Thank you for any answers, I just find it intresting to think about what should happen and the future of the UK. Loserdog ³⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independence is not a clearcut yes/no situation - there are many shades of grey. Scotland has had its own parliament since 1997 - see Scottish Parliament - which can legislate on many matters in Scotland. although there is a specific list of reserved matters over which the UK Parliament, in Westminster, still retains control in Scotland. An even more independent position, while still not yet being a separate state, is the status of Crown dependency held by the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. If Scotland did ever become a separate sovereign state it could still retain links with the UK monarchy by becoming a Commonwealth realm. Gandalf61 15:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh Independence is indeed a magic word. AFAIK more tax money is expendend north of the border than south of it per capita. There are also more MP's north than south in propotion (a northern MP requires fewer votes to be elected). There is a Scottish Parliament, etc. But for some ppl it is still not enough. I don't live in the UK and therefore my knowledge about this matter is quite limited, but I am unable to see any advantage whatsoever for the Scotish ppl in turning Scottland into an independent country. What would Scottland gain in being completly independent ? Fewer taxes? Does anyone seriously believe that? I can garantue you that if Scottland turns independent it would simply have to cope with the fact that it wouldn't have much bargaining power with other countries being rather small and isolated (simple facts).

So some religious leaders are proclaiming their support for an independent Scottland? Shees, and I thought they should rather worry about empty churches and the spiritual needs of their flocks, besides periodic scandals of homosexuality and child abuse which churches seem to be so keen to covering up. Sporting events are just another mean to blow of some steam and don't mean much most of the time. This is all about political deals and manuvers: the local representatives want to be (re)elected and therefore use the central goverment as a scape-goat for everything bad happening, while they are only responsable for the good and succesfull things. Because the crowd likes the notion "we are diffrent and original" many will vote for the party who loudly proclaims its intention in defending local interrests. Most of the partymembers only really want to threaten with "a independence referendum" to gain more funds from the central goverment, while some hardlineres dream of being the founding fathers of a new (or not so new) nation. Talking about narcissism and self-serving ambition. I would support independence notions only if the local ppl is really being oppressed by the central goverment which certainly isn't the case in Scottland Flamarande 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even NI has sufficient population to form a viable state (1.7m; between Estonia and Slovenia). Whether there could be a stable political system there is another matter, of course. Under succession of states theory, England - having over 80% of the population of the UK - would almost certainly inherit the UK's seat at the UN, and probably its Security Council seat as well (in the same way Russia inherited the USSR's UN and Security Council seats). EdC 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the thing about Tax money was that they claimed it was stifiling [sic?] their economy up there. Obv' I think it'd be good for us down in London to stop funding their silly schemes (i.e. Their Parliament!) and more money being raised in London & England being spent in London & England.
I think Labour has unleashed a can of worms tbh with the Scottish Parliament, giving England a democratic deficit. Tuition Fees were voted though with the votes of Scottish MPs whose voters won't even be affected by them!
Thanks Scotland, Uni's gonna cost me now. Loserdog ³⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume Scotland would remain a member of all the same organizations, like the EU, WTO, and NATO, I'm not sure that it would make all that much difference one way or another. If NATO handles defense, the WTO handles trade policy, and the EU handles most of the rest, then there isn't all that much left for the local governments to decide, in any case. So, what would the difference between a Scottish Parliament and a "fully independent" Scotland really be ? StuRat 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly nothing, they would have to employ more public servants (aka parasites) since they would have to create new ministries which currently are shared under the UKgov (a whole new army, a new foreign ministry, etc) and pay for it all. Having said that, the creation of the Scottish parliament is without a doubt a good idea; some issues are simply better dealt on a local scale, and it splits the moderates (who favour a relative autonomy inside the UK) from the "Independence at all costs" radicals. Being cynical I belive that having the last ones in a local parliament will show everybody (especially the Scots !) that the radicals are as incompetent and as corrupt as the MP's in London. Flamarande 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loserdog. Now let me see if I can answer your questions without tub-thumping. First of all, the consequences of full dissolution of the Union are difficult to assess in the abstract, so to speak, and might be likened to apportioning assets in the wake of a divorce. If we are talking about complete legislative independence, then the kingdom would simply revert to the situation prior to the parliamentary unions of 1801 and 1707. In other words, the individual nations would be united only by their loyalty to the Crown. But this raises additional questions; for though the dynastic union between Scotland and England in 1603 had no bearing on the legislative independence of either nation, there were important matters of state, most notably foreign and trade policy, that remained as part of the prerogative of the Crown. Again, what impact political disassociation would have on this is very difficult to estimate; but in theory all of the component nations would have to renegotiate entry into the various international bodies, like the EU.

On the question of 'viability' I think you will find that the policy of the Nationalist Parties is independence within existing treaty arrangements; and there are countries smaller than those of the UK that are still viable in national and international terms. And as far as loyalty to the Crown goes, none of the main Nationalist Parties have embraced republicanism as a platform.

I hope this is of some help. But I would be pleased to tackle any additional questions you may have. Clio the Muse 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To those saying English tax money finances Scottish spending: Doesn't almost all of UK's offshore petroleum resources belong to the Scottish shelf? That should balance out the economic equation some... Jørgen 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

british pop-singers

There ia an article about Liza Smythe in a text-book Interprise 2, but I couldn't get any infoformation about her. How can I do that?

She doesn't show up in a google search so either that spelling is incorrect or she isn't very famous. Nowimnthing 21:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

we want an article on whether christians could participate in an election?

In what country? Usually when people do not specify the country they're discussing in a question, they mean the US. But in this case I'm not so sure about that... Skarioffszky 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure we understand the question. Do you mean to ask where it is illegal for Christians to vote ? You could also be asking about where it is illegal for them to run for office. Or, you could be asking if religous leaders SHOULD run, or should leave politics to secular candidates. StuRat 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of your question; sorry. Could you please clarify what it is you are looking for? It would also be helpeful to know which country you have in mind. Also, are you thinking of Christian sects that, for whatever reason, discourage participation in the processes of the secular state? Clio the Muse

By "we want" do you mean that Wikipedia lacks one or that there is a group of you at the keyboard asking for one. I, personally, feel there should be an article showing the correlation between unsigned and unclear questions. Finally, I have some spare capital letters that I'd be willing to sell you at a discount. B00P 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclusive Brethren, a so called "Christian" group, don't vote, but spend millions on campaign ads.

Just a guess: The questioner means whether a Christian political party could participate as such in an election. Laicist France has no religious parties, but Italy has five parties whose name is or starts with Democrazia Cristiana, all of which participate in elections. It all depends on the country. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in France, surely a Christian party still has the legal right to run for office? 惑乱分からん 10:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they do. French laws about the separation of church and state are often considered the toughest in the world. But even if they did it's not likely many people would vote for them - politicians who even mention their personal religion find themselves marginalized by the public. Those who claim to base their support of policies on their religion have found themselves out of a job come election day (Christine Boutin, for instance). The French mentality is that religion is a personal matter, not a public one. --Charlene 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jehovah's Witness don't vote because they think it's not worth it 'cos the end of the world is so near.hotclaws**== 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Loomis (writer for Fortune Magazine) looking for list of all her published works

Would love to find a complied list of all of Carol Loomis' pubslished works. Trying to avoid compiling it myself: hoping someone else already did. I consider myself quite the search guru - prove yourself better than me! Seriously, much obliged for guidance to such a list.

Type Carol Loomis in the Google search box. It's all there. Clio the Muse 00:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning to learn violin with an electric violin

Is that a problem? Advantage?

I have to assume it will be the same as a guitar. It is harder for a beginner to learn to cleanly finger chords on an acoustic guitar. It is easier with an electric. I don't think it has to do with the frets, which is why I think it will apply to the violin as well. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violins have no frets. --Auximines 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume what Kainaw meant was that the frets on a guitar are not the reason for an electric guitar being easier to finger cleanly than an acoustic guitar. But I'm not really convinced that is the case anyway.

There are two reasons for playing an electric violin: 1) to play in a band with other amplified instruments/voices; 2) to practice while other members of the household are asleep. It does not seem to me to be a good idea to start on an electric violin. Learn on an acoustic instrument. Learn to feel the natural vibrations against your body, become aware of the sound you are making in the acoustics of your room, the balance between you and other instruments (hopefully you will become involved in playing with others), all this is vital to basic musical training. Later you can also play the electric for one of the two reasons above. Oh, a third reason just occurs to me: busking! Hikitsurisan 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that electric guitars go out of tune very quickly, compared to acoustic guitars. If this is true, might the same be true of electric violins? If so, an electric violin would be a frustrating first instrument, since tuning is largely learnt by ear. Skittle 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Blake and romanticism

How are William Blake's beliefs about Innocence and Experience related to romaticism? And did he have any characteristics that made him a Romantic? I've looked through his article, but can't find much on this. 71.31.158.152 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make myself clearer, are his beliefs that there is a "marriage" between heaven and hell consistent with the beliefs of other romanticists? It seems like he would fit more with the anti-transcendentalists (Nathaniel Hawthorne for example) than with the movement he is usually grouped with. I found an article on dark romanticism, but little amount of information that it does have is unsourced and could be original research. Would this describe Blake? 69.40.254.176 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a second question. When Blake wrote that "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom," did he mean that one should pursue excess to gain wisdom, or that the experience of excess can make one wiser and that it is the underlying "Desire" that is important in life? Thanks. 69.40.254.176 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read William Blake, Songs of Innocence and Experience and Romanticism? Clio the Muse 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit difficult to answer all of this but "road of excess leads…" is from Proverbs of Hell and is therefore probably best not regarded as wholly positive. Blake is more usually seen as a precursor to british romanticism but as the Blake article says "Ultimately, the difficulty of placing William Blake in any one chronological stage of art history is perhaps the distinction that best defines him." I don't know of a critic who places Blake in an anti-transcendentalist school with Hawthorne (you could be the first) but there is a general tendency not to directly connect european and american literary movements. Dark romanticism is a term which refers mainly to gothic fiction and as such is another category which doesn't really fit Blake. As to the marriage question you really need to understand what Blake meant by it and the romantics' views on the subject, quite a lot of work, how about comparing The Marriage with something like Byron's Cain meltBanana 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Would nihilism, at least the way Nietzsche viewed it, apply to Blake? 69.40.254.176 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. His religious views, and interest in mysticism, are not compatible with the materialism and iconoclasm that are the defining feature of nihilism. Clio the Muse 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

friday sermons

Where can I find all the sermons that are usually used in Friday prayers?

If you are talking about sermons after Jumu'ah then I expect there are a few common themes but they probably vary greatly from practical advice, to crazed ravings, to reminders of next week's jumble sale. You could type sermons and Friday prayers into google to get a sampling but you will probably only get significant ones. meltBanana 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are as varied as Sunday sermons in Christian church services around the world, but among the more common themes is the admonishment not to go the way of the wicked, who shall be deservedly punished in appropriate ways. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Sawdaye

I have tried to use your portal to search for more information on Ashley Sawdaye, an up and coming American actor. I was shocked to find that with all the information available online, Wikipedia had not a SINGLE link to any information on him. He is a budding star in some people's minds and I was wondering if you had some sort of explanation for this err. Just wondering, that's all. Thanks for any correspondence.Jstevens80 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)jamie.[reply]

Well he shows up on imdb, so he has some notability. It is just up to someone who is interested in him (I'm thinking you) to click on the red link above and start creating his page. Nowimnthing 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg

1.Julius streicher a. Why was julius streicher executed? Bengurione b. All julius striecher was publish a low brow magazine; how can that be seen as a crime against humanity? Bengurione c. Was julius striechers conviction related to anything beyond his publishing activities? Specifically was he involved in planing the holocust? Did he commit crimes against humanity in his role as gauliter? Begurione d. Was their outcry to regarding the harshness of his sentence within the human rights community?

2. Karl Donetiz. a. Had he not been appointed titlular president of the third reich would he have been brought to nuremberg?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes~.Edison 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could read Karl Dönitz to find he was brought to Nuremberg and Julius Streicher (with the external links) to make your own mind up about these probable homework questions. meltBanana 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the important point about the whole Nuremberg process is that it was not so much about fairness and justice, and more about settling accounts. Before anyone misunderstands this point, I should make it clear that, in the circumstances of the time, and against the background of what was being revealed about the Nazi state, this was a perfectly reasonable approach. The trial was, in theory anyway, based on the core concept of western jurisprudence: that if there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges, then the defendants could, in theory, have walked free. But can anyone envisage a situation where, for example, Göring or Ribbentrop could have walked out of that courtroom? I certainly can't. Some of the other cases are more problematic. There are good grounds for the contention that serving officers, like Dönitz and Jodl were treated unfairly. Streicher is a little more problematic. There is little doubt that he contributed, and contributed significantly, to the poisonous atmosphere that led directly to the Holocaust. However, he himself was not involved in any direct sense in the actual implementation of the Final Solution. Should one be hanged for expressing a view, no matter how repulsive? Probably not; but this comes back to my point about the circumstances of the time. Try to get a hold of a copy, any copy, of Der Stürmer. I once had the unpleasant task of reading through years of this dreadful publication, and I have never felt such disgust. Clio the Muse 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was kicked out of the party for financial shenanigans in 1940, so he did not participate in planning the Final Solution. He wrote evil things and many anti-Semitic diatribes in his newspaper, so he could be compared to radio talk show hosts, newspaper columnists and bloggers today who engage in racial defamation and who call for the killing of particular ethnic groups or their political opponents. A little reflection shows that many media people in the U.S and various factions in the middle east today are as culpable as Streicher was, who call for torturing, nuking, shooting, or otherwise exterminating those they disagree with. The fact that none of those who presently call for the killing or other harm of their political opponents are brought to justice implies that the execution of Streicher may have been Victor's justice, sometimes referred to as "Do as I say, not as I do," as a Double standard, or as Hypocrisy.Edison 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small correction, Edison, to your contribution. Streicher was removed as Gauleiter of Franconia in 1940, but he remained a member of both the NSDAP and the Reichstag, as well as the editor of Der Stürmer, until 1945. Clio the Muse 06:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law practice in the U.S. Virgin islands

What qualifications are required to practice law in the U.S Virgin Islands?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes~.Edison 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the U.S. Virgin Islands Bar Association website. -THB 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Vs. Sarkozy v.s La Pen

1. In a French presidental election between Royal, Sarkozy and La Pen who would win?
2. Is their any practical chance that La Pen or someone from his party could win the 2006 French Presidental election?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes~.Edison 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, since that would require more than 50% of the French population voting for him, when he was close to win in the last election, the French rallied to the support of Chirac mainly to stop Le Pen. 惑乱分からん 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this question I would say that your guess is as good as mine, perhaps better, on the assumption that you are very likely to be French. Of the three I think that Royal is by far the more telegenic, and generally charismatic; but she has to overcome the latent sexism in French society, no small obstacle. I think she has a good chance, though, against Sarkozy. There is little or no chance, in my estimation at least, of either Le Pen or anyone from his party ever winning a presidential election. But if history teaches anything at all it is that one should never say ever. Clio the Muse 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In polls for the first turn of the Presidential election with all three major + a few other minor candidates, Royal and Sarkozy are neck to neck with both between 32 and 37% of the votes (depending on the smaller candidates and which poll you look at - LePen 13%). In the second run with just them two in the race the last polls say R53 S47. All that is before there's even been any debate between the two major candidates so it is hardly an indication of the final result. At best does it tell us what is in the air 5 months before the actual vote. These are only polls and we know them to be particularly weak when it comes to estimating the votes going to the far-right. There's a groing trend that attributes votes to LePen as pure protest votes to try and destabilise French politics. Seeing the rally from all the sides of the political and social spectrum that brought Chirac its 82% at the last presidential election it seems quite unrealistic to think LePen could go through to win the second turn against any candidate.

5 months is a long time, especially in politics. No doubt S. will keep all the popular/populist reforms and laws for the last 2 months of the campain and R. will have enough time to set up a proper campain strategy. A lot of people say he is at a disadvantage against a woman. One thing that looks certain is that the election will be decided more on looks, image and emotions than on fundamental divergence of opinion. Maybe for the best. Keria 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) One of the first two. 2) No. Le Pen got into the second round last time, but that's because the second round is a run off between the top two candidates in the first round, whatever the relationships between numbers; French politics is very split, with a huge number of minor parties entering for the first round of the election (see French presidential election, 2002. Chirac got 20% in round 1, Le Pen got 16.8%, Jospin got 16.2%. 50% - one half - of the vote went to minor parties that go nowhere. In the 2nd round, about 95% of those votes went to Chirac - the question was never who would win, but how far into the 80s Chirac's vote would be. The question that will determine whether Sarkozy (or somebody else - Michelle Alliot Marie is being coy about whether or not she's running, it could be an all woman election ;-)) gets a similarly easy ride in is whether or not the French Left pulls together. If they unite behind the Socialists, who are the most credible of their parties, it'll be the Rally for Republic candidate against the Socialist, with a very interesting election. If they continue to divide themselves among the Socialists, the Workers' Struggle, the Communists, the Left Radicals and the Workers, them may doom themselves again. The French are in the fairly unusual position of being able to cast a protest vote in round one, but if too many of them continue to do so, over 60% of the country will be forced into choosing between somebody they hate, and somebody they detest in the second round. --Mnem e son 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Business School interview

A friend of mine is being interviewed for admission into the the Harvard Business School MBA program soon. Does anyone know of a good guide to HBS interviews out there? Or can give tips from personal experience? thanks! Bwithh 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]