Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 28

=December 28=

Globalization letter by economist
A while ago I found an article about a famous letter, I think it was by an economist in the United Nations who wrote a sarcastic letter about how the United States should dump it's radioactive waste in African countries since they had a lower lifespan and it would contribute to their economy, or something to this effect. The letter was flawless from an economists viewpoint but it was just wrong. I've searched and searched for it but I can't remember the name of the guy who wrote it so I can't find the article. I'd appreciate it if anyone can help me find the article. --Solid Reign 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard about the letter, but you might be thinking of Joseph E. Stiglitz, the former chief economist at the World Bank who resigned and became critical of globalization. Your description of the letter sounds like it might have been inspired by Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Hope this helps... Bobanny 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think it wasn't him, I can't find anything in google about him relating to the letter. It wasn't really so much like a modest proposal, in that the letter was not really meant to be public, but was some sort of private letter, and was somehow made public.  The controversy came from people not knowing he was criticizing globalization, and thinking he was being serious (heh, I guess it does resemble Swift). I really can't remember most of the details so I don't know if I'm adding details from something else I read, but I'm pretty sure that that's how it was. Thanks. Solid Reign 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot find an original, but quote seems to come from Office Memorandum from Lawrence M. Summers, Ext. 33774, Subject: GEP, the World Bank/IFC/MIGA, 12 Dec. 1991. I see The Multinational Monitor has The Lawrence Summers Memorial Award. The reference shows that the award went in 2001 to an Australian lawyer for patenting the wheel (a purposeful demonstration of his views of the patent laws). Of the quotation, it says: "Summers later said the memo was meant to be ironic". --Seejyb 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's the one, I actually went into Lawrence Summers article and skipped right by that part.Solid Reign 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

looking for a specific sheet music website
a few months ago i came across a wonderful website in the form of a message board, where people posted requests of sheet music they were looking for, and other members uploaded it from their own collections on their computer (if anyone had it of course). i have been searching desperately for it over the last couple of days but to no avail - does anyone know of this website? --194.176.105.39 08:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would be handy for me too, wouldn't mind it. Let's call it score-sharing.  You could start one yourself... I'm sure there would be enough demand for it (so long as there are no legality issues, with copyright, etc, the same way WP administrators delete copyrighted content, uploaded by people who simply don't understand).martianlostinspace 13:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

there is one at www.imslp.org (international music score library project i think it stands for) which is a wiki, and it's very good, but this was one particular website, and it's bugging the hell out of me! --81.111.18.84 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does society seem to find the idea of prisoners being sodomized amusing?
Any ideas (beyond some concept of 'they're only getting what they deserve') why sodomy in prison is a laughing matter for some (many?)? I'm sure most of us have heard (or read) people passing "I can't wait until six black guys with 12" cocks bend him over in the shower"-type comments when they hear about someone being sent to jail - at which others present start sniggering. Yep, they usually get in the comments about black mens' penises at the same time. --Kurt Shaped Box 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

because people are idiots? --194.176.105.39 09:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of people find sodomy amusing in any situation. I hope the ones willingly practicing it enjoy it too. Maybe it is the case of laughing about what causes anxiety as a way of reassuring oneself. I could imagine some people not being terribly affraid of going to prison but being terrified at the idea of being bullied and raped. Keria 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They do and they don't. In some situations it is an "Uh oh! Who dropped the soap?" sort of humor, but I've also seen it does dramatically as something one should not find funny, as a very violent form of abuse which the state itself perpetuates through inaction. --24.147.86.187 14:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very comfortable with the way this question has been phrased and I have never heard anyone express this kind of wish as a laughing matter or otherwise. However, if people do make comments like this, then it is a manifestation of Schadenfreude and one which is designed to gain the listener's approval, on the premise that the convict "deserves" it, in the way in which you outline. --Dweller 14:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are entire movies based around the idea that this is funny. See, i.e., Let's Go To Prison. --24.147.86.187 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also the "Bubba and friends will hand out more 'justice' to the perpetrator than any court in the land ever could" factor, especially in cases where the sentence is seen as too lenient. I'm not condoning it but I can understand why some victims of serious crime might feel this way and revel in the thought of their rapist/would-be murderer/etc. being made to suffer. --90.240.23.241 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example: "The best gift for a prisoner ? ... soap on a rope." StuRat 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the idea of sending people to prison archaic and odious to begin with, never mind what happens once there. Vranak 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see society finding the activity amusing, but that depends on what part of society one deals with. Is the question not analogous to : "Do you still beat your wife?" (I forget, what does one call that sort of question?) --Seejyb 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You see it a lot in movies and TV shows where the cop is positively gleeful when the prisoner is led away, and the cop laughs at his being greeted in jail by potential sodomists. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be specific and say that you see it a lot in US movies,TV shows, and even news commentary. Bwithh 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the book 24 Days, about the Enron scandal, there's a quote from a top California official (maybe the attorney general, if I remember correctly) that was something along the lines of, "I probably shouldn't say this, but I'd like to see Jeff Skilling locked up in a 6-by-8 cell with a 275-pound cellmate wearing lipstick and a dress." I don't remember the exact words. But it shows you how widespread and accepted this type of joke is. I think it's because America is a very vengeful society that really, really hates criminals and gets a kick out of having them suffer. It's the same reason sadistic Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is so popular. Of course, it's easy for us to condemn this attitude, but it's understandable if you've ever been mugged or had your house burglarized. -- Mwalcoff 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it understandable? Is the notion of cruel and unusual punishment is really totally lost on crime victims? Bwithh 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, there were times when all criminals, even petty thieves, were executed, so a bit of prisoner abuse hardly compares with that. StuRat 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When were these times? Lowerarchy


 * Many times in many places. One would be England, before they started shipping criminals to America and then Australia. StuRat 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per "I'd like to see Jeff Skilling locked up in a 6-by-8 cell with a 275-pound cellmate wearing lipstick and a dress," Skilling would probably find that scenario less odious than if HE were expected to wear the lipstick and dress. Edison 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes say this?
I am writing a series of articles for a local newspaper.

One of the quotes I'd like to source is said to have come from Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr ...if he said it.

But I cannot find it is Wikiquote or anywhere else.

Can you help me verify if the Justice made this rather jarring statement?

"I believe that there are no innate, intrinsic differences among a human being, a baboon or a grain of sand."

Dixon H Harris Denver North Carolina


 * I find everywhere this rather different statement: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand." Apparently it is from a letter he wrote, and it appears to be quoted in:
 * R. C. Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1990.
 * Richard Hertz, Chance and Symbol, University of Chicago Press, 1948, p. 107.
 * Albert W. Alschuler, Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes.
 * Perhaps one of these has a citation. --Lambiam Talk  13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "... Also I hasten to admit that I don't dare pronounce any fact unimportant that the Cosmos has produced. I only mean that when one thinks coldly I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand. ..." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to Frederick Pollock, 30 August 1929. Reproduced in Richard A. Posner, ed., The Essential Holmes: Selections from the Letters, Speeches, Judicial Opinions, and Other Writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), on p. 108. Took me longer to type out the citation than it did to find the quote via Google Books. --24.147.86.187 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

politcal opinons of the royal family
Even though they are non partisan in which party does the queen and prince charles sympathies lie?


 * The queen is the head of Parliament. If the royal family's sympathies lay elsewhere there would be big trouble. (See Parliament of the United Kingdom).--Shantavira 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first is, and the second aspires to be, inter alia, the Head of State, The Supreme Governor of The Church of England (appoints Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Vicars, and Rural Deans/Priests in Charge), The Queen/Sovereign of Parliament, The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, The Head of The Commonwealth and The Defender of The Faith/Defender of Faiths, as well as being the custodian of The Crown Estate (Palaces, Lands, Properties, Art Treasures, Jewels, The Crown Jewels etc. ad nauseum). The Sovereign owns all the swans in England (which are annually counted and reported upon to Her Esteemed Majesty via the Royal Swan Uppers (you think I am kidding?), signs (gives Royal Assent) to Bills being passed into Acts of Parliament (whilst retaining the constitutional right to refuse so to do) (last exercised by Queen Anne), appoints High Court Judges and Lords Lieutenant of the British Counties; receives and dismisses all foreign Ambassadors Plenipotentiary on presentation to her in the Court of St. James of their letters of credence, and approves all military commissions and appointments to membership of numerous NDPB's. She presides over all meetings of the Privy Council whilst continuing the Royal prerogative of having all Councillors stand on ceremony whilst deliberating their counsels and decisions so as to foreshorten the same. She presides over Investitures recommended to her by others, most notably the PM of the day, whilst retaining the personal gift of awarding Knighthoods and Damehoods of The Order of The Garter, The Order of The Thistle and The Order of St. Michael and St. George as well as others, and also the various Degrees of The Royal Victorian Order, and has the power to invite "that minister having the confidence of Her Parliament Assembled", to form a Government, whose subsequently unelected Ministers (they are appointed on the whim of the PM) must attend upon Her Most Excellent Majesty to "Kiss Hands" and receive their Seals of Office, and to constitutionally (in the absence of a written constitution) prorogue (dismiss) it. I guess if pressed, in absolute privacy, they would both admit to being Communists (of the persuasion favoured by Stalin, Ceaucescu, Tito,  and Chairman Mao), and perhaps even The Pope.


 * My stab at a serious answer: The Queen would vote Conservative. Charles is somewhat alternative and might well vote Green. --Auximines 10:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any answers to this question could only be guesses. The nearest anyone has come to an answer was when A. N. Wilson wrote an article in the Spectator in 1990 which reported the Queen Mother as favouring (I think the quote was) "a good old-fashioned Tory administration, and a sound Labour opposition" as providing the best government. Sam Blacketer 13:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Father Christmas
How old is Father Christmas?


 * The article says his roots are in paganism, which would make him a few thousand years old, but it also says the first occurrence of Father Christmas that we would recognize would be in Ben Jonson's "Christmas his Masque" from December 1616. Father Christmas has evolved and become what we know today since then. GhostPirate 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Odyessy - Comparing Pages 124 - 141 in the book to the movie
My son was told by his teacher that he could find in Wikipedia the comparison of the book and the movie of pages 124- 141. I've tried finding the place where he can do it and I have been unsuccessful Please help.

Michael Novick


 * Which translation of the Odyssey is he using? The page numbering will be different in each one. Did he watch the movie, and is being asked to compare it to the original?  If so, our article gives a decent synopsis of the action.  Antandrus  (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the movie is The Odyssey (TV miniseries) of 1997, that article lists the discrepancies. --Lambiam Talk  22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bank closures in the US
What is the law/act regarding how many consecutive days a financial instituion may be closed in the United States?


 * I think it might be regulated by the individual states. Here, for example, is a related discussion regarding the State of New York's General Construction Law Sections 24 and 24a, designating public holidays and setting forth "when and under what conditions banks are permitted to close.". ---Sluzzelin 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the FDIC establishes many of these rules, essentially saying "if you don't do this, we won't insure you". If I recall correctly, savings accounts may close for up to 90 days and checking accounts for up to 30 days, although such actions would only be taken during a severe financial crisis. StuRat 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that relatives who have worked in banks have told me that banks in California may not stay closed for more than three consecutive days, but that's OR. I can't find any proof.  User:Zoe|

(talk) 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My mother, a banker, coincidentally commented on this a few days ago. She said that the law is a maximum of three days, EXCEPT for a few certain circumstances, such as federal emergency or internment. That's what makes this 4-day holiday unique.