Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 25

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.

January 25

Don't understand ombudsman

Hello, I am confused what an ombudsman is or does. I am American, which may be part of the problem, but from the Wikipedia page it sounds like a lobbyist. Could someone explain in layman's terms what an ombudsman does, maybe with a hypothetical scenario? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An ombudsman is an official whose job is to resolve disputes; often that's disputes individuals have in dealings with large organisations like insurance companies or power suppliers. The UK is big on ombudsmen; if I think my insurer has ripped me off, I can complain to the ombudsman, who will investigate my complaint and talk to the insurer. He'll make a determination, and if he thinks the company didn't do what it was supposed to, he'll issue a ruling that says what they have to pay. They don't have to; they can always ask a court to overturn his ruling (and so can I). But mostly parties stick with the ombudsman's ruling, as the alternative is litigation, which is expensive for everyone. In this sense it's a form of non-judicial dispute resolution, akin to arbitration. Usually the ombudsman's services aren't available to the large organisation. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The only place I've seen them regularly in the U.S. is newspapers. They often have an ombudsman who comes in whenever there is a dispute about reporting (e.g. a scandal over plagiarism or bias) and writes a little column that says "the Times could have done a better job" or "the critics are wrong" or whatever. This person works for the newspaper but has a position that implies some independence. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone I know was in the Cleveland Clinic for a while some time ago, and I remember seeing a sign for an ombudsman's office while visiting at the hospital; I'm guessing that you would go to the ombudsman's office if you believed that your rights as a patient (a statement of which is posted in many places throughout the Clinic) haven't been respected. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One college I attended had an ombudsman. He was a tenured faculty member, who students could approach about problems when they encountered the stonewall of bureaucracy. It could be something as simple as a professor who faced the blackboard and mumbled unintelligibly in a lecture class with hundreds of students, and who refused to use the wireless microphone which was available. He also interceded when there were problems of racial discrimination or sexual harrassment of students by faculty or grad students. Edison (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, my father was in the ER at a hospital (in the US). I was trying to get information about his condition, but the ER nurse refused to explain anything to me, even though I got my father to tell her specifically that I had his permission to get the information. The hospital had an ombudsman, whose services I *would* have used, except it was a Friday evening and they were not open till Monday morning. The ombusdman at a hospital is supposedly there to serve the patients, serving as the patient's representative when dealing with the hospital bureaucracy. Woogee (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the UK Financial Ombudsman's site[1], which explains what he does; you can even complain in Welsh! Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In my part of Australia two ombudsman (men?) that provide satisfaction are the telecomunications one www.tio.com.au/ and the energy and water one www.ewov.com.au/ Without going through legal action they can direct the naughty companies to behave properly to you. The tio one is funded by the telcos, and each "proper" complaint costs the telco vaguely AU $1000, so they jump pretty quick. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

English monarch vs. Swedish monarch

I've always heard that the crowns of England and Sweden hold some political power: that is, they can influence policy somehow. I tried reading the Wikipedia pages, and every power they have seems to be nullified somehow. The British Monarch appoints the Prime Minister but they can only appoint whoever holds the support of the House of Commons. The Swedish King leads the Privy council in a session that establishes new government, but the Privy Council no longer exists. What I want to know is:

1) What powers does each monarch have, and 2) How are those powers actually effective in influencing politics?

169.231.8.128 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the formatting of the question. We don't use UBB code here for italics. You could use HTML if you liked but that too is not used in deference to Wiki style markup. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible the British (note British not English) monarch could withhold Royal Assent from a bill which has passed through the Parliamentary process. According to the linked article, there are such things called Reserve Powers which are used in emergencies. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (help I can't get the Reserve Power link to work...) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)a

(e/c)The role of the British (not "English") monarch is set out at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Parliament in the UK is effectively sovereign - the last time a monarch vetoed legislation passed by Parliament was in 1708 - but the fact that an unelected monarch holds any residual powers at all is the basis for Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Queen has the power to prorogue Parliament. In Australia in 1975, the Governor-General used this power to effectively dismiss the sitting government as it was a good bet that they would loose a General election. He didn't consult the Queen as perhaps he should have done, and it's quite probable that she would have told him not to do it. However, as I understand it, there's nothing to stop her from doing the same thing in the UK (except for the horrid example of Charles I). Alansplodge Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

After a little more research, in 1834, William IV dismissed the sitting Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne and replaced him with Sir Robert Peel even though Peel's party was a minority. Of course it didn't work and William had to swallow his pride and take Melbourne back again. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan, a couple of points: Kerr, the Governor-General, dismissed Whitlam's Labor Government, period. (No need to qualify it with "effectively"; he handed him a letter saying "I hereby terminate your commission as Prime Minister ...".) Then, he swore in a new Prime Minister, Fraser (Liberal), after first obtaining an assurance he (Fraser) would recommend a dissolution of the parliament and the calling of a general election. Fraser's first act as PM was to make such recommendations, and, of course, Kerr agreed. The future electoral fate of the parties was not a matter of any great moment in Kerr's thinking, but - and not to defend him in any way - he is on record as saying he believed the government he had just sacked would be re-elected. However, it turned out to be the greatest electoral defeat in the Labor party's history. In constitutional matters, the Governor-General has powers in his own right, not merely as the representative of the sovereign. The Queen made it very clear shortly afterwards that the whole episode was a matter for Australians to sort out themselves, and she would not be intervening, so prior consultation with the Queen would not have been appropriate. Debate on the question of how Kerr should have acted, vs. what he did in fact do, has raged ever since. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So in exchange for appointing Fraser, the GG extracted an assurance that Fraser would advise the GG to dissolve Parliament, an action for which the power resided in — the GG. I have to say that sounds a little convoluted. Why not just dissolve Parliament? What value is "advice" that you've directed someone else to give you? The Westminster system just seems a little too affectedly nuanced to me at times. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little convoluted. The Queen (or GG) is supposed to appoint the person they think most likely to have the support of parliament as PM. Apart from that one power (which is usually completely uncontroversial since they just have to appoint the leader of the majority party), the monarch doesn't really have any power at all. Certain powers legally rest with them, but they only act on the advice of ministers. The problem is, none of these rules are written down anywhere, so sometimes it is a little unclear how they apply in a special case. That leaves the Queen (or GG) in a bit of a difficult position and they have to just make things fit. In this case, the GG decided it was better to dismiss the PM and appoint a replacement without ministerial advice than to dissolve parliament without ministerial advice. Either way, it was going to be unpopular with a lot of people. Somewhere like the US there is a constitution and a Supreme Court that can sort out this kind of mess, in the Westminster system we improvise - it's more fun that way! --Tango (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For some weeks, Whitlam's budget had been stalled in the Senate (where the Opposition had the numbers). Fraser, the Opposition Leader, said he would let the budget bills pass the moment Whitlam called an election. Kerr and Whitlam had also been in private discussions on the issue. But Whitlam refused to advise an election; on the grounds that he and he alone had the power to advise the GG to prorogue parliaments and decide the timing of elections, and he was not going to have his hand forced in that unprecedented way. Kerr was impartial, politically speaking; his overriding concern was to ensure the government had enough money to run the country properly. If the only way for that to happen was to have an early election called (and that was a condition of Fraser's making, not of Kerr's making; the previous election had been held only the previous year), so be it. The last time a monarch shut down a parliament on his own volition, he lost his head - so Kerr would never have done that. But he could still take action to achieve the same outcome.

Fraser and Kerr's accounts of the matter differ sharply at this point. Fraser maintains that Kerr asked him before the dismissal whether, if he were commissioned as PM, he would ensure supply and call an election. Kerr adamantly denied doing this; and it would have been grossly improper for him to have done so. Kerr said that, before sacking Whitlam, he had already approached Fraser for an assurance that, were he commissioned as PM, he would ensure supply and call an election, an assurance that Fraser gave. These conditions were restipulated by Kerr after Whitlam was sacked, and again accepted by Fraser. For his part, Fraser said that the first and only time he was ever asked for such an assurance was after Whitlam was sacked. Kerr's gone to his grave now, and Fraser is sticking to his story. It would have been fantastic to think that an Opposition Leader who'd for weeks been holding a government to ransom and publicly calling for an election, and who was suddenly offered the Prime Ministership on a silver platter even though his party did not control the House of Representatives, would himself refuse to call an election; but under Fraser's Kerr's version of events, that was a possible outcome. Fraser could have declined Kerr's offer, under the same principle as Whitlam was citing - a Prime Minister is not told by anyone, not even a Governor-General, when an election is to be held. Kerr's version of events has Kerr acting in a grossly improper way, something he would be unlikely to be acknowledging unless it actually happened that way. Who to believe? I still don't know. In the event, Fraser was more than happy to accept Kerr's conditions, the parliament was prorogued that afternoon, the election was held, Fraser was elected PM in his own right, and went on to be the second-longest serving Australian PM (a record since overtaken by Bob Hawke, then by John Howard). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's an example of what I mean by excessive nuance. Both you, and the authors of the article on the '75 crisis, seem to consider it a question of great moment whether Kerr proposed these conditions to Fraser before or after Kerr dismissed Whitlam. I'm afraid I just can't work out why that makes any difference at all. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I got an important detail confused above; now corrected. It was Fraser who maintains that Kerr consulted him before sacking Whitlam, and it was Kerr who denied this to his dying breath.

You have to understand that these were extremely unusual circumstances. Normally, a new PM is commissioned after beating the incumbent at a general election; or, if the incumbent dies or resigns. In any of those scenarios, the question of a new election is not relevant. In the 1975 case, there was more at stake than just an orderly transition between prime ministers: the government was fast running out of money. The principal players, Whitlam and Fraser, refused to change their positions. Kerr felt it was up to him to act. But what could he do? He couldn't just unilaterally dissolve the parliament and call an election. If you don't understand why that was utterly out of the question, maybe do some reading around Westminster system. And even if he had somehow done that, the budget bills would still not have been passed, and the financial situation would have been prolonged till after the election and the calling of the new parliament, a minimum of 6-8 weeks away. The only thing he could was to commission a prime minister who could secure the passage of the budget bills and also advise an election to let the people have a say. The only person who fitted the bill was Fraser. The fact that he was the leader of the minority party in the House of Reps and could not possibly have survived the first no-confidence vote was constitutionally immaterial. He was in a position to resolve the impasse and get the money flowing again, before the parliament had a chance to vote against him. But Kerr could not risk the plan going wrong. Just imagine if he sacked Whitlam, only to discover that Fraser was not prepared to play it his way. Kerr would have had no option but to reinstall Whitlam, and then immediately resign himself. Unthinkable. Failure was not an option. So that is why, in Fraser's account, Kerr got Fraser on side before he sacked Whitlam. And it makes a lot of sense that Kerr would have taken such precautions. It also makes sense that he would have denied it, as such a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition was highly irregular and improper, even if extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions. One thing Kerr didn't deny was his consulting with the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, about his constitutional powers, despite being specifically told by PM Whitlam that he was NOT to do that. So, these things all show how his thinking was developing in the days leading up to the dismissal. In the end, all that really matters is that Fraser did agree to Kerr's conditions and the stalemate was over. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating story. I have to say, after looking through the various articles, despite being a staunch anti-monarchist, I have a lot of sympathy for John Kerr, perhaps mainly because I have almost none for Gough Whitlam. But not only because of that; also because Kerr seems to have acted as he thought proper under very difficult circumstances, and then suffered dearly for it. --Trovatore (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll find a certain section of the Australian community in agreement with you. Whitlam was hated by the right, and anything was considered fair game to get rid of him. Fraser's ploy of using his majority in the Senate to deny a properly constituted government the werewithal to govern unless it did what the opposition wanted, was previously considered unthinkable. 1975 wasn't the first time a government did not have the numbers in the upper house, but there was an unwritten understanding that, no matter what else an opposition might have done, blocking a government's budget was just not on. All that precedent went by the board in 1975. Consequently, Fraser was hated by the left. But that hatred was mild compared with the passion caused by Kerr's action. Whitlam's party was in government, having been elected in December 1972 and re-elected in May 1974. He had an absolute majority in the House of Reps. By his reckoning, he had the right to implement government policy in accordance with his electoral platform, and should have had access to the funds to get on with the job he was elected to do. Every PM chooses an election at a time that is most advantageous to their own party; that is completely accepted across the board, being one of the perks of office, I guess. Why should Whitlam alone have been denied this? Why should he have been dictated to by a minority opposition? Fraser's answer to that was the "reprehensible circumstances" that Whitlam and his people created. (Politicians can be terribly hypocritical when it suits them, can't they.) Yes, Kerr was placed in an invidious position, nobody denies that. But was his solution the only one available? To reward the creator of the immediate problem (Fraser) with the prime ministership (albeit in a caretaker capacity), and to punish the innocent victim (Whitlam) with dismissal as if for crimes he did not commit - these have always been the source of immense rage among the left. But it was 35 years ago now. Time moves on, and a lot of younger people know only the bare bones of the story, if they know of it at all. But for those with longer memories, 11 November 1975 will go down as one of the most shocking days of their lives. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's hard for me to see Whitlam as "innocent". According to these unwritten rules you speak of, in which I have no investment, maybe he was. But I don't like autocrats, and I don't like populists, and Whitlam seems to have been that most virulent hybrid, the populist autocrat. People like that make my blood pressure spike, even when I agree with them on certain individual issues, as it sounds like I would have with Whitlam on, say, the death penalty and conscription. Similarly with our own version, Andrew Jackson, my personal most despised US president, even though I probably would have agreed with him on stuff like the Bank of the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

for the claim Whitlam was a populist autocrat. N.B. The only point I want to add to Jack's story is that as mentioned in Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, one of the reasons why Kerr consulting Sir Garfield Barwick was controversial was because he was a former Liberal AG (and also because issueing advisory opinions was outside his mandate) Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding it correctly, it basically boils down to Whitlam losing a confidence vote and refusing to resign. It was complicated by the fact that it wasn't an explicit confidence vote, just a supply vote, which is usually considered a de facto confidence vote, and it took place in the Senate, not his own house, but those points don't really matter. He didn't have the confidence of parliament and should have either resigned or advised the GG to dissolve parliament. Unfortunately, it is only convention, and not law, that requires a PM to do that, so there is no way a judge could force him. That only leaves the GG, and he did what needed to be done. --Tango (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't quite like that. Until that time, there had never been an actual vote in the Senate. The Senate merely deferred consideration of the budget bills. There's been a lot of talk about whether this deferral constituted a "failure to pass" the bills. The only actual vote concerning confidence in the government was the vote of lack of confidence in Fraser's newly installed government; Fraser came in to the House to announce he'd been appointed PM, then didn't even wait around to participate in a vote he knew he could only lose. In the meantime, he was busy organising his Senate colleagues to get Whitlam's budget bills passed, and getting the paperwork ready to advise Kerr to dissolve the parliament. The Speaker of the House went to Kerr to tell him the PM, Fraser, had lost a confidence vote and to recommend he re-commission Whitlam. But Kerr was busy organising the dissolution of parliament and refused to see the Speaker until he was good and ready. By the time they met, the parliament had been dissolved, and Fraser remained the incumbent PM throughout the election campaign, despite having lost the confidence of the House. And Whitlam was out on his ear, having never lost any confidence vote, and despite having had his budget passed by the Senate and given Royal Assent by Kerr that afternoon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think vote of no confidence says it best, in that there's normally no requirement or expectation that a government needs the confidence of the upper house and in fact it's not that uncommon that they won't. The nature of such houses usually means even with an election, there's no guarantee you'll get a better result. Of course in Australia after two failed votes followed by a double dissolution and another failed vote, the government can have a joint session and I presume this applies for supply bills as well but it seems a bit extreme that you'll have to go thorough that every year or so... Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a double dissolution applies to "any proposed bill" that is twice rejected. One of the reasons, perhaps, that there have been only 6 double dissolutions in 109 years is that, except for 1975, budget bills have been considered sacrosanct by all sides of politics. There's plenty of opportunity to criticise and scrutinise them, and question the government on the details, but at the end of the day, when it comes to a vote, they will always be allowed to pass. 1975 was the only time this convention was ever broken. As I said above, the Liberals in the Senate were tricky enough not to actually vote the bills down; all they did was defer consideration of them, and defer, and defer. But the result was as good as if they'd been voted down, because the government did not have the money it needed to do the job it was elected to do. The actual content of the budget bills themselves was never seriously in question; the bills were merely being used as a bargaining ploy. It made about as much sense as: "If you don't give me that promotion I richly deserve, I'm going to hold your children to ransom". That's the sense in which I referred to Whitlam as the "innocent party". And the repercussions of Fraser's tactic are still going on to this day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right Jack; I was talking off the top of my head as usual.Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Was the Governor-General of Canada involved in any capacity in the current prorogation of the Parliament of Canada? Or did the Prime Minister do it on his own? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The PM requested (by telephone!) that the GG prorogue parliament, which she did. The GG must generally follow the advice of the ministers; it would have been highly unusual for her not to grant the request. Indeed, there was much more concern for the prorogation last year. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Parliament is prorogued again? I hadn't heard about that. What happened this time? --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The PM wants to avoid criticism over abuse of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan, would like to stack the Senate with Conservatives while the other parties aren't able to do anything about it, and, for some reason, wants to start all over with various bills that his own government considered very very important. He also doesn't want to do any work while the Olympics are on. (There must be better, real, reasons, right? But are there really?) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When Harper asked the GG to prorogue Parliament the first time, in December 2008, some people speculated she might refuse his request, but in the end she did what Harper wanted. Interestingly enough, today's featured article is about an Alberta bill to which the king's representative reserved assent until the Supreme Court ruled on its constitutionality. The Supreme Court rejected the legislation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the first time the proroguing appears to have been successful since the rumoured no confidence vote never came so some might argue it was a legitimate thing for the government to do, to enable each side to think more carefully about what they were doing. (As opposed to a pointless delaying tactic it may have seemed if he'd lost confidence after coming back.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Sweden, the monarch has absolutely no influence what-so-ever on anything in the political realm or regarding the governing of the country. All that power is vested in the elected government and parliament. He has some very symbolic positions (like heading the Council of Foreign Affairs) and he is the Head of State, but he has no actual constitutional power. No one needs his Royal Assent, he doesn't command the military, he couldn't prorouge a dinner party, etc. He doesn't even vote (well, if he really wanted to, I suppose he could, but the royal family doesn't vote by tradition), and he never speaks on political matters. The Swedish King is the definition of a powerless figure-head. It couldn't be any other way, because many Swedes are in general very uncomfortable with the idea of a monarch, and if there's even a hint that he tried to influence policy in any way, the Riksdag (i.e. the Swedish parliament) would immediately modify the constitution and kick his sorry ass out (well, not immediately, to change the constitution you two votes from the Riksdag with an election in between, but pretty quickly). For all intents and purposes, Sweden is a parlimentary democracy. Belisarius (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I'm right in saying that the Swedish Instrument of Government contains a line which translate something like "All public power in Sweden arises from the people". I don't have a copy to hand, if anyone does they could check. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people" is the opening sentence, according to Riksdagens website. [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the prorogation of Parliament in Canada, there were protests in 64 different cities and towns in Canada against it on Saturday, and also in four other countries around the world. I'm currently trying to get this onto the main page, but a separate article may be needed. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sweden: Couldn't it be that even though the Swedish monarch de facto has no power, he may still de jure have some according to the constitution? The reason for this question is that in Denmark following the 1849 constitution he king had the power to appoint ministers and if necessary overrule the parlamentary elections. This eventually resulted in him abusing this power by appointing a Conservative government despite the election results, which basically meant we had a dictatorial rule for a number of years. When the opposition finally came to power the constitution was changed in 1901 to prevent this from happening again, and thus effectively making the monarch a figure head. Could it be that these pre-1901 circumstances could be inherent in the Swedish constitution, but that they were never changed because they were never abused in the same way? --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That was the case during the first three quarters of the last century, but since 1974 the Swedish monarchy no longer has any de jure power. Please see Monarchy of Sweden#Head of state and Instrument of Government_(1974). As noted in the latter article, this is quite unusual compared to other constitutional monarchies. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti terrorist and drug certificate

"Do I need an anti-terrorist and drug certificate to transfer a very large amount of my funds from Belgium overseas?", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.2 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unable to answer legal questions. If you have a "large amount of funds" then I strongly recommend spending a small fraction of them on getting good legal advice. You should probably also tell that legal advisor where you intend to transfer the funds to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

or you could just send them to me and I'll handle it. let me send you my address in Nigeria... --Ludwigs2 09:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

minor league baseball salaries

I have a question on how payment for minor league baseball players is handled. Say that the KC Royals signs on a new prospect to a $200,000 2 year contract, and then sends him to their AAA club in Omaha. Who pays his salary, the KC club, or the Omaha club, because they probably do not have the same owners, and Omaha was not the organization that offered the contract? What about when halfway through his contract, he gets moved to the big leagues and start playing for KC? Googlemeister (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Minor league baseball#Affiliation_system: Major league Rule 56 governs the standard terms of a PDC. Generally, the parent major league club pays the salaries and benefits of uniformed personnel (players and coaches) and bats and balls, while the minor league club pays for in-season travel and other operational expenses. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So the answer is that the minor league teams do not have to pay salaries, but do have to pay travel. Not a bad deal for the MLT then as I was wondering how they could be profitable with their payroll. Thanks for the response. Googlemeister (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a few things. BaseballBugs will have to chime in with the details, but I am pretty sure that only the salaries of the team's 40 man roster is covered by the Major League Player's contract; that is that only players on the 40-man roster have to be paid at the league minimum, and only those players count towards baseball's soft salary cap. While only 25 players will actually suit up for a game, that leaves 15 players, some of whom are on "injured reserve" and the rest who will actually play in the minor leagues. So, if I am correct here, that means that 40 players are paid a minimum of $400,000, and the average major league salary was $2,996,106, according to MLB.com: [3]. That means that, on average, a major league team is paying roughly $120 million dollars for its 40-man roster. However, given that there is no minimum salary for minor league players, one could envision that most of them are making, say, $30,000 per year, or 1% of the average major league salary. So, lets say that a club employs, along with its 40 major leaguers, another 150 or so more players (most teams have about 5-6 minor league franchises), at even a generous $50,000 per year that would leave a modest $ 7,500,000 for its minor league players. If we bump that up to $100000 for a minor league player, that would still only be $15,000,000, still not anywhere near the $120 mil paid to the major leaguers. So yes, it is an expense, but its not the sort of thing that "breaks the bank" compared to major league salaries. --Jayron32 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor league team does not have as robust a revenue stream as a major league team though (very limited if any TV revenue, lower priced tickets etc), so while $8 million might be a drop in the bucket for the KC Royals, that would probably be a very significant expense for the Omaha Royals. Googlemeister (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

name for style of woman's shirt

What do you call a woman's shirt that has a deep v in the front, so that there are two "bracups" formed in the fabric ? thanks, cinnamon colbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.3.195 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A v-neck? Gabbe (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Camisole? Useight (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Camisole is a garment (sleeveless undershirt that may be worn as outerwear), not a style. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A v-neck alone is only the shape of the neckline/opening and doesn't produce the bra-cup effect. That would require shaping of the fabric at or under the bust, possibly by gathering, pleats, darts, or seaming. See, for example: the "empire waist top" - though note that the empire waistline traditionally goes with classic neckline treatments (scoop, boat, etc.) other than the V-neck. Can you describe the other features of the shirt besides the "deep v"? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Peripherally, is the word "blouse" no longer current for such female garments (if buttoned)? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blouse is a more generic term, and I don't think they typically have built-in cups, in general. The description reminds me of that green thing that J-Lo wore on some awards show several years ago, although I'm not sure it had cups either (much to the chagrin of the network). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Bustiers are v-cut in the front as you describe. Edison (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Travelling to the US via Canada

I'm a British citizen and I'm going to stay in Toronto in summer with a friend at her relative's house. Because of the proximity of Toronto the US border, and New York, we were interested in going across for a week or less for the sake of tourism only. Ordinarily, if I was traveling to the US directly, I'd be eligible under the Visa Waiver program, thus not requiring to get a visa assuming I have a valid passport from the UK government. However, because I'm not traveling direct, and we want to go across the border, does this mean we'd have to apply for the B-2 tourism visa at additional cost? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am from the US and was able to use the program to travel to New Zealand direct from Australia, so it appears to work in the reverse direction, as both NZ and Aus are part of the program. Googlemeister (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, providing you meet the requirements of the Visa Waiver Program. The prevailing document is an I94W (non-immigrant visa waiver) which is issued by the carrier (for air or land) or is available in the customs post (for land crossings) and is inspected at the crossing. For land crossings CBP says you'll have it inspected at "secondary" (ref) for a small fee. Make sure you meet all the requirements for it, and expect a nontrivial queue. Taking your return airline ticket (Toronto->LHR or whatever) should satisfy them that you have every intention of leaving the US. Note that Toronto has "proximity" to NYC in the same way London has proximity to Dundee. And Buffalo isn't worth visiting. If you fly you'll pass through US immigration at United States border preclearance at the Canadian airport. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that pretty much solves my problem. Do I fill out the I94W at the preclearance area in the Canadian airport, or do I need to have it processed before I leave the UK? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the airport, you will be required to fill out your I94W either in the Canadian airport, or on landing in the US. You do not need to fill it before you leave the UK. Rockpocket 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for your help. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, poor Buffalo. Doesn't it still have outlet malls? And you can go to Detroit or Port Huron, about four hours to the west. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Buffalo isn't worth visiting"? Ouch. Reminds me of the old railroad line, the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo, the TH&B, the "To Hell and Back" line. On the other hand, choosing Detroit over Buffalo is questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Port Huron is quite nice, though. I spent a night there when I moved from Toronto. Not much to do there, maybe, but the lake is pretty. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You can also cross over the St. Lawrence a couple of hours east of Toronto. There are some nice towns in New York there (although I forget what they are called). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that although you don't need a visa there are additional security measures you will have to take as a non-US non-Canadian citizen. The main one is you will probably need to be fingerprinted. This will take a little longer, which won't make much difference if you fly, but if you decide to drive you'll need to stop the car and go into the building rather than just drive through. You'll also need six dollars in US currency (no Canadian, no Sterling, no credit cards). None of that applies if you fly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll definitely be flying, I'm not 21 so I can't get a rental car over there. Also, the prospect of a 6/7 hour drive doesn't really do it for me. Definitely flying. Thanks. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although it's true that only a few of the major American rental car companies rent to anyone under 25, and none of them rent to anyone under 21, some small rental car companies will rent to 18-year-olds and older; google rental car 18 years old. This article touches on the subject and mentions the possibility of renting a moving van (!) instead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are companies that will rent to 18 year olds, but is it legal to? And would I still be covered by insurance? I doubt it! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal: Yes. Why would the rental companies do this openly if it were illegal? Insurance: Great question and you will have to read your insurance contract to find out. All the major car companies (and probably all the small ones too) also offer alternative insurance. It's pretty expensive (or may seem cheap to you depending on how much peace of mind it offers you). I'd call and find out first, though it sounds like you've ruled this path out already. The article I linked to above does mention you'll pay more as a person under 25, possibly substantially more. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no fees travelling from Fort Erie to Buffalo, but the way back there is a small fee if I remember correctly. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that Buffalo isn't worth visiting, but there are certainly places worth going in New York State that are closer to Canada than New York City. The Finger Lakes have some of the prettiest landscapes in the Northeastern U.S. and are less than 4 hours by car from Toronto. At the far end of the Finger Lakes, maybe 5 hours from Toronto including time at the border crossing, is the small city of Ithaca, New York, which is very pretty and is culturally rich for its size because it is a university town. Of course, the closest border crossing to Toronto is at Niagara Falls, which is well worth a look. The American side is a little less spoiled by tacky tourism than the Canadian side. Going around Lake Ontario the other way, you pass by the picturesque Thousand Islands. Continuing into New York State, you come to the rugged Adirondack Mountains, including the resort towns of Lake George, Lake Placid, and Saratoga Springs. There is also historic Fort Ticonderoga. Marco polo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't you have to register online for the Visa Waiver Programme now? I'd advise Cyclonenim to check with the US Embassy in London before travelling. DuncanHill (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears so. Sheesh. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Buffalo and must agree that there isn't a lot to do there. BUT, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery is quite nice, especially if you are into modern art. A couple hours farther is Letchworth State Park, which is quite scenic. Niagara Falls was mentioned above. It's sadly surrounded by tacky tourist traps but the falls itself is rather impressive. The Journey Behind the Falls and Cave of the Winds (New York) might be worth doing. Niagara Falls is quite close to Buffalo--part of the metro area. So people like me tend to consider it all part of the general region. Still, having grown up in Buffalo, the place to go to have fun and see cool stuff was Toronto. On the other hand, if you can manage a visit to New York City--quite a ways from Buffalo mind you--that would be worth doing. Pfly (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other ideas near the Buffalo area, if one must avoid Buffalo. Remember that New York State is quite large and oddly shaped, such that Buffalo is really much closer to large cities in other states than New York. For example, Cleveland, Ohio is only 3 hours drive away, so you have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to visit there. If you are an American football fan, the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio is not far. Cooperstown, New York, also not far, houses the Baseball Hall of Fame. If you like wine, there are lots of little family vinyards that give tours in the area around Jamestown, New York. Likewise, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is only about 1.5 3.5 hours away. So even if Buffalo doesn't have enough to keep your attention for more than a day or so, you could use it as a base of operations to go see the sights in other area cities. --Jayron32 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's about 219 miles (350 km) from Buffalo to Pittsburgh, according to Google Maps. If you can do that in 1.5 hours, I'm impressed. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What, you don't ride around in a helicopter? Googlemeister (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed my typo. Then again, you don't know how I drive... --Jayron32 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One fun thing to do in the U.S. that you can't do in southern Ontario anymore is to go to a minor league baseball game. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's still the Intercounty Baseball League! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've never been to New York city, then don't detour - go right there. Other cities are nice, but New York is New York and if you're at all limited in time, spend it there - if you can afford the hotel prices. Of course I wouldn't want to live there... DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)