Humanities desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

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 7

In our midst

Who is the highest-ranking United States Presidential cabinet member of an opposing political party to that cabinet's President in the last 100 years or so? For this question, I mean "highest-ranking" in its commonly understood sense (State near the top, Agriculture near the bottom). I've had a bit of ale, so if my meaning's not clear, I mean something like George Bush appointing Barney Frank as Secretary of the Treasury. --Sean 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.W. Bush would have been about as likely to appoint Barney the Dog as Barney Frank to be a member of his cabinet. Edison (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of United States political appointments that crossed party lines. Clinton's appointment of William Cohen as Secretary of Defense is a recent high-ranking appointment of this type. —Kevin Myers 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of say, highest crossing of party lines ever, I would say that it probably goes to republican Abraham Lincoln's choice of democrat Andrew Johnson as a running mate in 1864. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both ran for the newly formed and shortlived National Union Party (United States). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once the Civil War ended and Lincoln was shot, it became painfully clear that Johnson was a Democrat in a government run by Republicans; it led to his impeachment, which he survived by a single vote... Well, officially it didn't lead to his impeachment, but realistically... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't survive his impeachment (unless you're talking about the entire process). He was impeached by the House of Reps, but he survived the consequent vote in the Senate. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most senior Cabinet departments are State, Treasury and ~~War~~ Defense, in that order. The list cited shows two ~~transvestite~~ such Secretaries of the Treasury: C. Douglas Dillon and John Connally. —Tamfang (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Caucasus = Middle East?

Is the South Caucasus generally considered to be part of the Middle East? I see the category in the article and it's relatively close by, but I'm not sure if it's simply just a separate region that's merely north of the Middle East. Note that the South Caucasus includes Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. At least I have never heard of it being considered part of the Middle East. I think the region must be known as the south-east corner of Europe. In soccer, they are regarded as European, not Asian. --Omidinist (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Usually the South Caucasus is considered to be part of Europe, whereas the Middle East is usually associated with Asia (with the exception of Egypt, which is partly in Asia and partly in Africa.) --Lgriot (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some political, cultural, and economic reasons to associate Muslim Azerbaijan with the Middle East, a region which is as much defined by religion as by geography (e.g. "Azerbaijan joins the middle east"[1]), but not Armenia or Georgia which are culturally European and Christian.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to the original question is no. The South Caucasus, including Azerbaijan, is not considered part of the Middle East, as it is usually defined. Also, even if soccer teams from the South Caucasus play in a European league, this region is conventionally considered part of Asia, which is almost always defined as the part of the Eurasian landmass east or south of a line running off the Aegean coast of Asia Minor, through the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, and Bosporus, through the Black Sea, along the crest of the Caucasus Mountains, through the Caspian Sea, and along the crest of the Ural Mountains to the Arctic Ocean. According to this definition, the South Caucasus, lying south of the crest of the Caucasus Mountains, is part of Asia. Marco polo (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Canada

What are the requirements for a Canadian individual to become a Prime Minister of Canada? Sonic99 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prime Minister of Canada says: Legally, any citizen of Canada of voting age (18 years) can undoubtedly be appointed to the office of Prime Minister, these being the requirements to gain election to the House of Commons. Since it is not legally necessary for the Prime Minister to be a sitting MP, there is some question as to whether there are technically even age or citizenship restrictions to the position.

The article is sadly lacking in citations and references, so I would not bet my job on its accuracy. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I. Practically speaking, in this day and age it would be virtually impossible for a non-Canadian to ever become PM of Canada. That's because under the Westminster system it's virtually impossible for a non-MP to become a Minister, let alone Prime Minister, and MPs must be citizens. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement for a Prime Minister of Canada to know how to speak English and French? Any educational and work experience requirements? Sonic99 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an official requirement that the PM be bilingual, but it's generally considered an unofficial requirement. An English-speaking politician who seeks to go places will spend many hours trying to better his/her French. Because the position of prime minister comes from the unwritten part of the Canadian constitution, there are no formal requirements so far as I know for the position, but generally the person must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, that is, get at least half of the house to at least tolerate your presence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister is appointed to form a government by the Governor-General and is almost always the head of the political party which has won the most seats in the House of Commons in the most recent election. To become the head of a political party, you must be the candidate that the party thinks has the best chance of leading the party to this position in the House, or of maintaining this position, in the next election. It is extremely unlikely that such a candidate would not be bilingual, would not be a Canadian citizen and would not be of sufficiient years to have had success in a career. However, as seems clear from all the preceding comments, there do not appear to be any written requirements. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada takes a different approach to the US. While the US lays down constitutional restrictions on who can be President, the Canadian system assumes that if someone can command the confidence of a majority of MPs then that's all the eligibility they need. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Japan

What are the percentages of Japan's total population that is Shinto, Buddhist, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertEinstein1978 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Religion in Japan. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have numbers? I didn't see any on a casual looking-over. —Tamfang (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to work out, because Japanese religious traditions allow a large degree of synchretism - religious practices from Shinto, Buddhism and even Christianity and other religions are used on and off, but not necessarily regularly. There may be some data, though, as to regular participation in specific religious ceremonies. Steewi (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once read in a book about Japan (about 20 years ago) that 127% of Japanese agree to having a religion. This is not a joke answer. This number was derived from the % that say they belong to each religion added up, suggesting that Japanese would agree to actually belonging to more than one. On a side note, I found generally that for happy occasions (such as the consecration of land for a new house) a Shinto ceremony is used, for sad occasions (such as a funeral or annual remembrance ceremony) a Buddhist ceremony is used, while for weddings people usually go to a Christian chapel and have a white wedding. This is the general trend, at least in the last eleven years I have been living in Japan.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

national bankruptcy - article in wikipedia missing

cant find an explanation on the topic national insolvency in wikipedia (en)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bankruptcy

word seems to exist: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1 quote: REYKJAVIK, Iceland – This volcanic island near the Arctic Circle is on the brink of becoming the first "national bankruptcy" of the global financial meltdown.

in german it exists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsbankrott --Stefanbcn (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Seriously. Everything at Wikipedia exists only because people, like you, saw that it was missing and deserved to be here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really makes sense to call a country bankrupt. When people talk about Iceland being bankrupt they are taking figuratively. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. See Habsburg Spain. Spain declared bankruptcy several times in the 16th and 17th centuries; their numerous wars and attempts at empire building meant that their heavy indebtedness made the government unable to operate locally. Banks just stopped lending to the Spanish gov't; they had to declare bankruptcy in order to function. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there actually bankruptcy proceedings or did the government just default on its debts? Bankruptcy is different from insolvency. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion in Sovereign bond.79.70.184.49 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a small stub about the Danish state bankruptcy of 1813. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think bankruptcy implies 1) the eventual dissolution of the organization 2) eventual cessation of operations and 3) and the liquidation of assets to - at least partially - return capital to creditors.

A country can certainly do the third thing by "renegotiating" it's debt (declaring that bonds are only worth 50 cents on the dollar or something like that), or reducing it's assets. And it's easy to see the sitting government being removed after that (hopefully in an orderly and democratic way in any of our great western democracies), but most of the same civil infrastructure and power structures would still exist. As long as the legal right, and practical ability, to tax citizens remains - it's hard to call a government debt default or renegotiation a bankruptcy.NByz (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, bankruptcy is simply the declared inability to pay one's creditors. NByz's description of bankruptcy appears to describe something like a corporate bankruptcy, though many corporate bankruptcies fail to result in the dissolution of the corporation or the cessation of operations. Instead, the corporation reorganizes, makes a deal for partial repayment of creditors, and then emerges from bankruptcy to resume business more or less as usual. Likewise, personal bankruptcy does not result in a person's dissolution and cessation of operations, but involves a forgiveness of at least a portion of the person's debt and a path back to a normal financial state. A nation such as Iceland could certainly go through a similar process. Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and stand corrected. 24.68.54.155 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the idea behind bankruptcy, and what seperates it from mere insolvency, is the notion that a bankrupt entity organizes some sort of deal whereby the terms of its debt are restructured to remove the state of insolvency. From the point of view of the lender; its always better to recover some value from a bad loan than no value at all, a country which has become insolvent has NO means to pay back its creditors; once it enters a state of bankruptcy it just means that it has negotiated some means by which to repay its creditors under alternate terms, such as paying back only a portion or paying back over a longer term. This sort of deal is not tied to a legal proceeding in any way (though bankruptcy courts do exist to negotiate and enforce the terms of bankruptcy), and it is entirely possible for a government to declare bankruptcy and to renegotiate its debt in order to maintain some semblance of being able to operate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that bankruptcy is a legal state, you're not bankrupt until a judge says you are. It is possible to renegotiate debts without going into bankruptcy (in the UK, individuals usually do this via an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), which is distinct from a bankruptcy). Governments don't generally renegotiate debt, they just declare that they are going to only pay a certain portion of it and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The idea of bankruptcy is that the courts enforce an arrangement that protects the debtor and gives them a chance to rebuild their life and is fair to all the creditors, no part of that applies to a government defaulting on debt. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche Democrats

What are some books and website sources about LaRouche's attempts to influence the Democratic Party? Also what was the legal reasoning that allowed the Democrats to oppose his followers who managed to win delegates? --Gary123 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary!

For the long answer, see this article: Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns. Now the short answer: Since 1999, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has denied LaRouche delegates in primaries due to the fact he is a felon and as a result, not registered to vote. Before this the DNC ruled in 1996 that votes cast for LaRouche would not be counted when allotting delegates [2]. In the 2000 primaries LaRouche won delegates on paper in Arkansas [3], [4], [5], [6] but these weren't seated. There have been lawsuits between LaRouche and the DNC about this over the years. As for books, the main one I know on LaRouche is Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King. The book American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others by John George and Laird M. Wilcox has a very good section on LaRouche.

I first came to know of this guy when I was doing research on who to vote for in a Virginia Senate race in 2002. LaRouche was mentioned in the bios of one of the candidates running and it peaked my interest. In short, this is a weird guy! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird" is putting it lightly, but I'll refrain from further commentary... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, Hos, and FYI one's interest gets piqued, not peaked. --Sean 14:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though one's interest may well peak in this candidate after one has barely peeked at a book written about him. ៛ Bielle (talk)

Sean, Thanks for the comment and the correction in my grammar.

Bielle, the candidate in question was named Nancy Spannaus; she claimed during the 2002 campaign to the Democratic candidate, much to the annoyance of the real Virginia Democrats. See [7]. She ended up getting 9% of the vote. See [8].

Two more things I forgot earlier. In 2003 a Democratic consultant remarked about LaRouche: "We're a pretty big tent, but the tent doesn't include lunatics and criminals". See [9]. Also in 2003 he was repudiated by Don Fowler, a former DNC Chair during the Clinton presidency. He said: "Not only is he not a registered voter but he has an extensive written record of racist and anti-Semitic opinions". [10] As for this year LaRouche's group backed Hillary in the primary and decided no one was worth voting for in November. To me, LaRouche is to the Dems as David Duke is to the GOP - extremist losers who latch on to the major parties to further their agenda. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Proving Princess Diana's Importance to the World

I am currently working on a year-long history assignment. Our goal is to prove that our person was the most important person in the world. I am currently trying to prove that Diana, Princess of Whales was the most important person in the world. I need to find out what she did that it infected the world as a whole.. and not just the US or England. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

--Devol4 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean "affected the whole world"; if infected was what you meant, perhaps Typhoid Mary would have been a better choice for subject... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help your (ludicrous) assignment if you got her title right. She was Diana, Princess of Wales, and had no dominion over whales at all. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've set yourself a tricky task, though. It would be easier if you chose someone actually important. Algebraist 11:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP was allocated Princess Diana rather than choosing her. Whichever, I agree this is a near-impossible task. Love those typos, though. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think her importance, such as it is, lies in the way people now relate to public figures, and specifically to their deaths. I was living in London in 1997, and I have never seen anything like the outpourings of public grief when she died. Her death led to a whole new way of grieving for people you have never known. The whole "book of condolence" thing, for example, was completely new (yes, I know there were books of condolence before, but how many were there for public figures, signed by hundreds of people?). Why did she kick off this reaction? I was no big fan of the woman, but you have to admit that she had something special, otherwise the public grief would not have happened to the extent that it did. She was beautiful and there was a sense that she had been wronged by the stuffy formality of Charles (his affair with Camilla) and the rest of the Royal Family. I always think of her as essentially being sacrificed to the needs of the British establishment. Charles needed a wife who could produce him an heir. He had dithered around various women for years but had never taken the plunge with any of them. Time was running out and along came the beautiful, photogenic (but far too young for him) Diana. Plus, of course, there was the tragic and entirely unnecessary manner of her death. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entirely subjective topic, you're never going to be able to "prove" it (even to such an extent that's ever possible outside of mathematics). You can give all kinds of examples of important things she did (see Diana, Princess of Wales to get you started) but that's about it. That will show she's important. To show she's the most important person you need to compare her to everyone else, I don't see how that's really possible. You certainly can't do it one person at a time, you'll have to try and categorise everyone that has every lived and then show how she is more important that everyone in each category. How on earth you do that, I don't know. (It would be easier with a major world leader or something, but even then I don't think you would get very far.) You would be better off just telling your teacher to set a realistic assignment (they won't take it very well, but I found teachers usually just gave up when confronted with any real argument - if they try to punish you just appeal it and they won't be bothered to fight you on it). --Tango (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note to help... The term "most important" does not limit itself to positive importance. Negative importance can be "most important". For example, Hitler is still a very important influence in the world - just in a negative way. As for this assignment, you have to get around the vagueness. What do you mean by "important"? What makes one importance more important than some other importance? Use of "the world" is still vague. Do you mean important to every person in the world? Do you mean important to every government in the world? Do you mean important to every teenager in the world? Do you mean important to every sedimentary rock in the world? You can start by heavily limiting the scope of what is important and who it is important to, then go from there. -- kainaw ™ 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong approach. If the question were to work out who is/was the most important person in the world, then you would want to start by defining importance. However, the question is to prove some specific arbitrary person is most important - the only way to do that is to define importance in whatever way makes Diana most important. The difficultly comes in convincing people that that is a reasonable definition. So, the first step is to find out everything you can about Diana, and everyone else in the world (good luck!), and then come up with a definition of importance that gets you the answer you want. --Tango (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various surveys conducted periodically of the most well-known, most recognised, or most famous person in the world. The likes of Jesus, Mickey Mouse, and Michael Jordan often do well, but I suspect in her heyday Diana would be well up there (and not just among whales). You could probably prove she was more important than Michael Jordan or Mario, and more alive than Jesus. QED.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember of various people arguing for Diana's importance was that she shook up people's view of the British Monarchy, causing them to become more "in touch" with the people, more involved with the underprivileged (such as AIDS victims and landmine victims). Having given you that hint you'll have to do the rest of the research yourself.

If you get a chance to choose a different person to argue for I would do that. There are plenty of people who have had a much bigger significance. But if the point of the assignment is to make a case for a proposition, rather than decide if you agree with it, then you'd better just do it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age and cause of death is also significant. Remember that, although Diana was popular, she died at a young age in a tragic accident, attempting to escape the paparazzi. These factors lend themselves to the image of a victim, but can only be subjectively interpreted. She and her image image have become a heck of a lot more famous now that she is dead, so proving that she was "the most important person in the world" before she died is going to be extremely difficult (bordering on impossible, and I say this because in my subjective view, she was not the most important person in the world, however one can measure that importance). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind the answer lies somewhere amongst (a) don't drink and drive (b) keep to the speed limit and (c) wear a seat belt. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devo14, by "most important person in the world" I take it you mean "a world-famous person"? I guess you'll include what effect she had on the royal family, the public's perception of them, how she radically exposed her own life and theirs, the way she used her celebrity to bring attention to previously unpopular causes (land-mines, aids victims f'rinstance), that she knew and was influenced by or influenced other celebrated people (like Mother Teresa) and her popularity with celebrity artists (Sir Elton John). As well as others here, Kittybrewster's point is worth including and it's an interesting article. For myself here in Australia, my uni lecturer took class time to remember her and what Diana meant to her as a role model (?!) etc etc. So, yeah, she got to people. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And PS, you'd have a harder job proving charles was important after he picked a supermodel for a wife, with great media/PR skills who turned out to be more popular than him even after her death. JR09:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

us presidentcy

If before the president is sworn into office he and the vice president elect are killed who becomes president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddygiz2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See United States presidential line of succession. -- kainaw ™ 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly different to the above if it happens before the electoral college has voted (December 15 this year), in which case the electoral college may be able to choose new candidates. There was a recent discussion here on deaths of presidential candidates, which could be extended to this case.[11] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the "before sworn in" part of the question. The 12th Amendment doesn't handle deaths of candidates - only how to handle ties in electoral elections. The 20th Amendment says that Congress will either choose new candidates or set up a system to choose new candidates if, for any reason, the elects cannot be sworn in. -- kainaw ™ 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Obama were killed after the electoral college votes, but before the swear-in, would the constitution demand that Biden take the presidency, or would it require that "Congress either choose new candidates or set up a system to choose new candidates".

I ask because, if the presidential candidates weren't of the party that controlled congress, it could result in a real power struggle. I suppose the Supreme Court would decide which course the constitution intended, eh?NByz (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text of the 20th Amendment which was linked above. Rmhermen (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness and motivation in Marxism

In Marxist theory, what are the sources of happiness, unhappiness and human motivation? Neon Merlin 17:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's theory of alienation and Marx's theory of human nature will help answer this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you might try reading the class assignments. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Presidents and visual/hearing impairments

A recent discussion of Franklin Roosevelt and his confinement to a wheelchair led to thoughts about others Presidents with handicaps. I know Wilson's stroke gave him problems, and Reagan had hearing aids later in life, thuogh I'm not sure about at the start of his presidency. What is the wrost hearing that any U.S. President had at the time they took office? What about the worst vision? (Without looking, I seem to recall Theodore Roosevelt was quite nearsighted without glasses, but am not sure how badly.) Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Reagan was mostly deaf for his entire presidency. He lost his hearing in one ear on a movie set, when a prop gun was fired next to his head. The hearing in his good ear may have gotten worse over the course of the 8 years, but he was definately hearing impaired at the start of his presidency. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that Richard Nixon had a legal impairment - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal". And JFK and Clinton had sexual impairments. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, good one; Harding, too. Wow, I didn't know that about Reagan; that's amazing. Also, checking on Teddy Roosevelt, I read that he was quite sickly as a child; nothing about his vision but I suppose it's possible. Then again, he was in the military in Cuba, so...who knows.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't mention it much, but this page: [12] notes that "It has been speculated that Reagan's hearing loss, and eventual use of hearing aids bilaterally, was caused by exposure to gunshot noise while filming numerous Western movies in Hollywood [8c]. At the time of his 1980 election, the hearing loss was described as "moderate" [16]. The hearing loss may have been asymmetric to some degree. Reagan's chief of staff, Donald Regan, once tried to deliver a message to Reagan during a press conference, "but Reagan could not hear since Regan was talking into Ronald's deaf ear" [8f]. Reagan was fitted with a $1000 custom-made hearing aid in 1983 [5]." Cheers... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. That is a good site, I realized. Check it out: Medical History of the Presidents of the United States Its got TONS of stuff, and its ALL crossreferenced. AN excellent source for anyone wanting to answer the above question! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]