Something New Every Day: Random & Newly Found Facts

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,428
Likes
31,091
Points
284
From an old Ripley's Believe It Or Not I've only just discovered: It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

Go on. Try it. You can still sort of do it if you keep your mouth open but is that still classed as humming?.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,617
Likes
23,206
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
From an old Ripley's Believe It Or Not I've only just discovered: It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

Go on. Try it. You can still sort of do it if you keep your mouth open but is that still classed as humming?.
I can hum a few notes holding my nose, with my mouth closed. Do I win a prize?
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,601
Likes
27,334
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Not being an American, I know virtually nothing about the history behind this topic, but I find it fascinating that a court could conceivably turn back the clock and turn half of contemporary Oklahoma into an Indian Reservations as the result of a murder trial.

Interested to hear opinions from the other side of the pond:


Edit: Do U.S. state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have the power to pass retrospective legislation? Legislation, that is, that backdates changes to the law to transform illegal actions into legal ones and vice-versa? The British parliament does, but for obvious reasons uses the power sparingly and some other countries are not able to do this. The UK famously used it by passing the War Damage Act 1965 in order to make the destruction of Burmah Oil facilities by British troops during the war legal and avoid paying the compensation they had been judged to be owe the company.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,289
Likes
15,422
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Do U.S. state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have the power to pass retrospective legislation? Legislation, that is, that backdates changes to the law to transform illegal actions into legal ones and vice-versa? ...
This is a very thorny legal area under US law, so I can only answer in broad strokes (very general terms).

Ex post facto laws (laws that retrospectively criminalize or impose additional punishment(s)) are specifically prohibited at both the state and federal level by the US constitution. Over the last 2+ centuries this general prohibition has been refined so as to pertain more to the issues of 'criminality' and 'punishment' rather than the law per se. By this I mean that federal and state legislatures may pass laws with retrospective effects, but no citizen can be convicted, punished, or punished more severely for an act that occurred prior to the law taking effect.

Owing to the progressive focus on 'criminality' and 'punishment', retrospective legal effects are much more limited in criminal than civil proceedings.

More recently, even finer distinctions were drawn with regard to what constitutes 'punishment' with respect to retrospective effects. For example, there was a big argument over the issue of requiring convicted sex offenders to register as such if their convictions had preceded the imposition of the registration law(s). As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled that registration did not constitute additional 'punishment' (under the law), but something more like a newly-added civil requirement, and the registration requirement was constitutional.

The Oklahoma case isn't really as much a test of ex post facto prohibitions as a test of the legality of certain governmental actions dating back as far as the 19th century. Phrased another way ... Murphy's case is contesting jurisdiction (federal vs. state) more than anything else. Even if he's successful in his claim the Muskogee reservation was improperly disestablished, I'm not sure it would necessarily result in the desired outcome - i.e., evading the death penalty for a murder for which he confessed guilt.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,601
Likes
27,334
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
This is a very thorny legal area under US law, so I can only answer in broad strokes (very general terms).

Ex post facto laws (laws that retrospectively criminalize or impose additional punishment(s)) are specifically prohibited at both the state and federal level by the US constitution. Over the last 2+ centuries this general prohibition has been refined so as to pertain more to the issues of 'criminality' and 'punishment' rather than the law per se. By this I mean that federal and state legislatures may pass laws with retrospective effects, but no citizen can be convicted, punished, or punished more severely for an act that occurred prior to the law taking effect.

Owing to the progressive focus on 'criminality' and 'punishment', retrospective legal effects are much more limited in criminal than civil proceedings.

More recently, even finer distinctions were drawn with regard to what constitutes 'punishment' with respect to retrospective effects. For example, there was a big argument over the issue of requiring convicted sex offenders to register as such if their convictions had preceded the imposition of the registration law(s). As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled that registration did not constitute additional 'punishment' (under the law), but something more like a newly-added civil requirement, and the registration requirement was constitutional.

The Oklahoma case isn't really as much a test of ex post facto prohibitions as a test of the legality of certain governmental actions dating back as far as the 19th century. Phrased another way ... Murphy's case is contesting jurisdiction (federal vs. state) more than anything else. Even if he's successful in his claim the Muskogee reservation was improperly disestablished, I'm not sure it would necessarily result in the desired outcome - i.e., evading the death penalty for a murder for which he confessed guilt.
Thanks for that. My train of thought when I enquired about retrospective legislation was headed towards the question of whether the reservation could be retrospectively disestablished (to use your term) so that the crime would not have taken place on Indian land, even though it did--if you take my meaning.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,289
Likes
15,422
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Thanks for that. My train of thought when I enquired about retrospective legislation was headed towards the question of whether the reservation could be retrospectively disestablished (to use your term) so that the crime would not have taken place on Indian land, even though it did--if you take my meaning.
It's the other way around ... Murphy's trying to (in effect ...) retrospectively re-establish the reservation so that the murder would fall under tribal jurisdiction with no risk of the death penalty.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,601
Likes
27,334
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
It's the other way around ... Murphy's trying to (in effect ...) retrospectively re-establish the reservation so that the murder would fall under tribal jurisdiction with no risk of the death penalty.
I got that.

I was wondering whether, if his legal argument is accepted and the murder is judged to have taken place on tribal ground, the jurisdiction could be retroactively nullified by legislation that re-shifts the boundary and applies to the time of the crime.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,289
Likes
15,422
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... I was wondering whether, if his legal argument is accepted and the murder is judged to have taken place on tribal ground, the jurisdiction could be retroactively nullified by legislation that re-shifts the boundary and applies to the time of the crime.
I don't think a finding that the reservation-to-USA transition was technically flawed would settle anything about his conviction or sentencing. He's attempting to force the legal institutions to dig back more than a century to see if there was a glitch back when.

That's only half the issue. The second part would be reversing course and figuring out what (if any) ramifications of the glitch legally propagate back to the present timeframe with respect to his situation.

At the extreme ... If all this were to result in a firm and final finding that the Creek Nation was still legally sovereign as a reservation (a la its 19th century status) it might save Murphy from execution, but it would also nullify citizenship and associated rights and privileges for the rest of the tribal population, with retrospective legal carnage going back over a century.

I doubt this most extreme situation will occur, because the scope of the matter at issue has to do with jurisdiction in criminal matters.

More specifically, with regard to your question ... My understanding is that no retrospectively effective legislation could subject him to additional / higher punishment (death above and beyond life imprisonment) as a result of the ex post facto prohibitions (and subsequent findings / precedents / interpretations) - provided it were ever established that he had been legally subject to no worse punishment than life imprisonment. This baseline for assessing any such potential shift in degree of punishments couldn't be properly evaluated until the from-past-to-present analysis of resultant ramifications had occurred.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,172
Likes
6,801
Points
294
Schnapsidee is a German noun that describes a scheme, idea or suggestion of poor judgment that only makes sense when you're drunk.

If I turn up at my ex-girlfriend's hen night, she might break off the engagement with Doug...
that's going on my gravestone in some form or other. (schnapsidee not the stuff about Doug)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,601
Likes
27,334
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Jugs of 'moonshine' are labelled 'XXX' because the drink is typically distilled three times to achieve the desired strength. Alhough cartoons and movie props invariably feature three Xs (indicating the drink is 'ready'), in reality one X is added to the label each time a distillation cycle has been completed.

So simple, but I had no idea.
 

Comfortably Numb

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
3,494
Likes
4,368
Points
154
Location
Phone
Not as crazy as dodging into an abandoned Texas building to smoke a joint and stumbling upon a caged tiger.
"The man, who was not identified, initially believed he was hallucinating when he found the female tiger in a 'rinky-dink' cage, Police said"...

What a laugh, tremendous!

Can't be far off our definitive WTF?....!

154999576716471.jpg
 

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,365
Likes
7,135
Points
284
What on earth does that mean? I recognise it (cautiously) as being a piece of 1960s/70s American English with a Vague Possible Context being music / Vaudville?

Ah wait...are these Disney Words?? (goes to search)

EDIT
That was SO close as a guess....it's officially US English for decrepit / down-at-heel / dingy.

But this is where I remember it from mainly


Pink Panther From Head To Toes said:
Think of all the animals you've ever heard about
Like rhinoceroses and tigers, cats and mink
There are lots of funny animals in all this world
But have you ever seen a panther that is pink?

Think!

A panther that is positively pink,

Well here he is, the pink panther,
The rinky-dink panther,
Isn't he a panther ever so pink?

He really is a groovy cat,
And what a gentleman, a scholar, what an acrobat!

He's in the pink, the pink panther
The rinky-dink panther,
And it's as plain as your nose,
That he's the one and only, truly original,
Panther-pink (panther) from head to toes!

Well now you've met Pink Panther
The Pink Panther
Wasn't he a panther ever so pink?
You've seen that he's a groovy cat
And what a gentleman, a scholar, what a acrobat!

He's in the pink, Pink Panther!
A rinky-dink panther,
And it's as plain as your nose
That he's the one and only truly original
Panther pink from head to toes
Yeah he's the one and only truly original
Panther Pink Panther from head to toe

But WAIT.....not only am I not wrong, I'm right n'all!! The Aristocats, Disney animation.

There are side-refrains made of the words rinky-dinky-dinky during O'Malley's big number, sung by Marie Kitten and O'Malley (wrongly transcribed below)

Aristocats said:
Everybody wants to be a cat
Because a cat's the only cat who knows where it's at
Tell me, everybody's pickin' up on that feline beat
'Cause everything else is obsolete
A square with a horn
Makes you wish you weren't born
Every time he plays
But with a square in the act
You can set music back
To the caveman days
I've heard some corny birds who tried to sing
Still a cat's the only cat
Who knows how to swing
Who wants to dig a long-haired gig stuff like that?
When everybody wants to be a cat
A square with a horn
Makes you wish you weren't born,
Every time he plays
Oh riki-tiki-tinky
With a square in the act
You can set music back to the Caveman days
Everybody wants to be a cat
Because a cat's the only cat who knows where it's at
When playin' jazz he always has a welcome mat
'Cause everybody digs a swingin' cat
Everybody, everybody
Everybody wants to be a cat
Hallelujah
Everybody, everybody
Everybody wants to be a cat
BUT wait a moment....we now find that all three of these only contexts that I know of are CATS-related.

So is the true US English meaning of 'rinky-dink' somehow also associated with cats? Bit coincidental....
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,289
Likes
15,422
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Top