Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 19

= November 19 =

OPEC
Why is OPEC based in Vienna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Perks (talk • contribs)
 * Austria's neutrality in the Cold War made it a favored location for all kinds of international bodies. (See Declaration of Neutrality.) Wareh (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

tutti-fruiti
What is tutti-fruiti and where is our article on the subject? --Seans Potato Business 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tutti frutti. Wareh (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've redirected tutti-fruiti to Tutti frutti. Exxolon (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Womp-bomp-a-loom-op-a-womp-bam-boom! --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The God that failed
I would be interested to know why Marxist Communism, built around a notion of freedom and justice, ended as one of the most oppressive doctrines ever devised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.233 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

well, but what is that big difference between marxist communism and leninist communism and maoist communism. The fact is, all communism have failed because communist economies were not that successfull growth economies and wealth creators as capitalist economies were. Meanwhile, who are you Mr/Ms.86.147.185.233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.29.48 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You could do worse than to read George Orwell's Animal Farm, 86.147.185.233. Its first target is Stalinism, but I think it will work for you. Xn4  14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxists would contest that ended, yet alone that it ended as one of the most oppressive doctrines ever devised. The USSR and its Empire is seen by many as somewhat of a false start, and that a true Marxist Revolution is still to come. Ninebucks (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Marxist revolutionaries are often "ends justify the means" types of folks, a philosophy justified largely through Marxist materialism though I doubt Marx would have read it in quite that way. The end result is that you often have had new regimes desiring to sweep aside old regime entirely, by any means necessary. The results are almost always grim and in no way prepare the country in question for being any sort of liberal political environment. All of which is a long way of saying that the motivations for those to start Marxist revolutions have often led the revolutionaries in question down very nasty paths, though I would have note that such has been the case in many non-Marxist revolutions as well. Additionally Marxism puts a strong priority on centralized control and rule of the state during its early phases (dictatorship of the proliteriat), and in practice phases never seem to end though in theory they are supposed to. Personally I consider the Marxist belief in the eventual dissolution of the state under Marxist rule to be something of the same character as the Christian belief in the second coming of Christ—it's always around the corner, it never happens, but it serves as a justification for all sorts of behaviors. But then again I'm something of a materialist myself, albeit a misanthropic yet empathetic one. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a mixture of ideology, of politics and of circumstances. There was always a millenarian dimension to Marxism, an assumption that history proceeded by great leaps; that an ideal society could only be achieved by turning the world upside down and inside out. The general optimism to be found in Marx's theory, that the new world would emerge from the womb of the old, carried to life, it might be said, by the 'dynamics' of history alone, was also accompanied and contradicted by a fearful realism based on a reading of historical events. For Marx, and for those who came after, most notably Lenin, the Paris Commune provided an example of what might and could go wrong in a 'proletarian' revolution; history might have brought it to life but there were those on the wings who cared nothing for the process of historical inevitability. If the revolution was to defend itself it had, therefore, to be as ruthless as its enemies.

After October 1917 Lenin, in defending the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which in practice meant the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party, used a Red Terror that was even more ruthless than the White Terror employed by Adolphe Thiers in 1871. But victory was achieved in direct contradiction to Marxist theory, including that of Lenin himself outlined in State and Revolution, that the state would 'wither away'. Instead the apparatus of coercion, the agencies of state power, grew stronger, not weaker. The Communists, moreover, though in isolation, and with an increasing siege-mentality, still held to the conviction that 'history' was on their side, which meant refashioning society in their own particular image, no matter the cost, in the forced collectivisation of agriculture and rapid industrialisation. The perceived intensification of the 'class struggle' that this process brought about deepened, still further, the coercive power of the state in the hands of Stalin. And so it continued in its own way, and with its own dynamics; through Mao, through Pol Pot, in ever decreasing circles, ever more murderously perverse; ever further from, or closer to, the Marxist ideal. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the the average bill of a meal in USA
When I go to a restaurant near my home, I eat two idlys, two chappatis, a sambhar vadai and a roast. Even though they are neither healthy nor tasty, it is very cheap at Rs.42 or $1.1. And it is what most people in my state eat in restaurants. Meanwhile in USA, I just want to know how much does an average american spend in USA when that person goes to a restaurant in USA. You may have any meal or tiffin. But I just want to know how much is the average american's spend on an average day in a tiffin or meal. Is it say $5 or $10, like that. Please mention spends in various types of restaurants. For example, $X in 5 star hotel, $Y in an neighbourhood restaurant, $Z in Mcdonalds etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.29.48 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here in Tallahassee (medium-small city), I expect to spend $6 or $7 for lunch on average. My university has two cafeterias where you can eat an unlimited amount of food for about $7.50, so that's where I go when I'm really hungry. A fancy restaurant can be as much as $20 per person, or even more if you get a big steak or something. At some other places, you can get a filling meal for under $3 if you don't get a drink. —Keenan Pepper 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Keenan's "as much as" is underestimating the high end. I don't often go to high-end restaurants in the US, but I don't imagine it's hard to find prices over $30 for the main course alone.  Of course prices will be higher in locations where real estate is expensive.  --Anon, 18:15 UTC, November 19, 2007.


 * By the way, I know the question only mentioned the US, but if people elsewhere in the world want to chime in, I'd find it interesting, and I don't think anyone would mind. —Keenan Pepper 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * McDonald's and their ilk often have a single hamburger for 99 cents. That's usually about the cheapest from there.  I have to say, I wish I could buy the royal feast you described for $1.10.  I'd eat that every day, too!  --c


 * In the UK, a single MacDonalds Hamburger is about 79p (about $1.60 at the moment). A decent meal (say, pizza or a curry) varies, although £6 or £7 (up to about $15) is about average. Fancy restaurants can be stupidly expensive - upwards of $40 per person. Then there's a of variation lot between that; it's normally a couple of pounds ($4 or so) for a full English breakfast at a café for example. A snack, the Western equivalent of Tiffin, varies, but a cup of coffee and a cake will normally cost £1.00 to £2.00 (about $4), although some people will pay a lot more than that for Starbucks or Costa coffee. Laïka  17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The OP hasn't asked about the UK, but the most expensive meal I've ever had in a London restaurant came to more than £250 (about $500) per person. I'll quickly add that someone else was paying. With a little ingenuity and a large appetite, you can spend a lot more than that in a smart restaurant, and yet more in a night-club over here. On the other hand, tea at the Ritz in London is a snip at about £25 a head, so nowadays you need to book it, just like booking a dinner. Xn4 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Magazine The Economist has a big-mac index that charts the price of a big mac across the globe (http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm) they also have a starbucks latte one I think. It's a good indicator of purchasing power - you'll get a better description from them...

"Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Thus in the long run, the exchange rate between two countries should move towards the rate that equalises the prices of an identical basket of goods and services in each country. Our "basket" is a McDonald's Big Mac, which is produced in about 120 countries. The Big Mac PPP is the exchange rate that would mean hamburgers cost the same in America as abroad. Comparing actual exchange rates with PPPs indicates whether a currency is under- or overvalued."

(http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/about.cfm) ny156uk (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We used to do a similar thing with Mars Bars when I was at school. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You could have a look at Wikitravel, prices for dining out are usually on the various destination pages. Keria (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In Ontario, Canada, a foot-long (30 cm) tuna sandwich from Subway costs $6.83 when you include the 14% in federal and provincial taxes. On the other hand, the ingredients for a tuna sub sandwich at home will cost half of that, maybe. But you'd have to spend a lot more than $6.83 to have the choices of toppings Subway offers. Chinese take-out will run you about $11 or $12. A medium pizza with three toppings is about $12 or $13 after tax. A meal at a nice, not-fancy restaurant can easily run to $30 a person even before the wine. By the way, tiffin appears to be a word unique to India. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was in India last year, I was amazed at the low price of restaurant meals. I was in Tamil Nadu and managed to have good meals for 35 rupees (less than $1 at the time).  Here in Boston, which is more expensive than some other U.S. cities, a typical lunch (sandwich and soda) costs about $8.50.  At McDonalds, you could have a reasonable lunch for around $3.50.  For dinner at a modest restaurant here, you would pay about $16-20, not including beer or wine, but including tax and tip.  For dinner at a restaurant with a better reputation, it would be more like $35-50.  For dinner at the best restaurants in the city, you can easily pay $350 per person.  Marco polo (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Food prices tend to vary drastically from country to country depending on the per-capita incomes of the places. In the Czech Republic (outside of the tourist areas), you can get a meal of soup, potatoes and a small cut of meat for about 3 euros. A whole pizza costs about the same. Beer is like 50 cents for a half-liter. After getting used to it, it was quite a shock coming back to North America and seeing how expensive food is! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't done dinner for two in Toronto for less than $130.00 in several years, though that does include a glass of house wine each. And, like Xn4, and doubtless many Londoners, and certainly those who visit there on a regular basis, I have eaten the $500 meal. (It was excellent, by the way, something not always true of the expensive places.) Bielle (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In New York, I paid $15 for a burger and $15 for a corned beef sandwich at Katz's Deli. Part of the experience, I guess. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In Australia, a filling take-away meal is US$6-8 (but start at about $4). Eating at a low end restaurant will cost about US$10-15. Prices go as high as you want to depending where you eat. In China, I could get a good meal for under US$1, even paying foreigner prices. Steewi (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Fruit sandwich available in all Mcdonalds stores in USA? how much does it cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.140.137 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to say no, as I have never seen one. And, in fact, am having trouble imagining one. You would put fruit on bread? They do have a small fruit salad and fruit in other salads (menu here:). Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * shot in the dark* Might a Fruit Sandwich be related to a McDonalds applepie? Occasionally available in other varieties. Skittle (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eisenhower
why was Eisenhower known as "Ike"? As far as I can see, none of his names were Isaac. DuncanHill (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ike" is often used as a nickname for people whose name is Isaac. I guess somewhere along the line, it got applied to him because his last name was Eisenhower.  I used to know I guy whose nickname was "Ike" because his first name was Dwight.  :)  Corvus cornix (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Answers answers. I once read that all US presidents with names wider than X picas in headline-sized type will end up with a nickname (such as TR, FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, etc.).  --Sean 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But Eisenhower was called Ike while he was still an active duty soldier and before he got into politics. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Although I can't verify that.  The earliest Time article which calls him Ike is from 1952 - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859852,00.html Corvus cornix (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has hits for "ike eisenhower" as early as 1942, though. In a number of stories about him from the 1940s they mention that his nickname is "Ike". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See also . "All six of the Eisenhower boys were at one time or another nicknamed Ike."  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't connect to the link provided. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't connect to either of the links provided :( DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can—sounds like an issue on your end? It fails at some sort of certificate check so you might try it in another browser or playing with your security settings. Or try the non-https version of the page. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't he borrow his brother's nickname? Edison (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting New York Times story from 1953 in which Eisenhower says that he "likes Ike" too as a nickname; that he doesn't mind it when newspapers in particular use it in the headlines. The article points out that the name EISENHOWER is pretty long and hard to fit into a big headline; a lot harder than IKE anyway. I wonder if that didn't have something to do with it. It also notes that it is common in the army to get nicknames from your comrades that stick throughout your career. It also reports that, "The President was nicknamed 'Ike' as a boy despite his mother's best efforts. Like most mothers, Mrs. Eisenhower wanted her son called by his full name. He had been David Dwight, but she switched these names around to Dwight David so he would not be called Dave, all to no avail. At West Point the nickname was pinned on him for Good. After he became president of Columbia University a few years ago, he was asked if he would prefer to be called 'General' or 'President,' and his reply was, 'I'll always answer best to the name of 'Ike'." Reference: "Eisenhower Indicated He, Too, Likes 'Ike'; What's in a Nickname? Headline news", New York Times (17 December 1953): 24. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

World War One Air Aces
The air aces of the First World War have left a somewhat glamarous image as the last of the knight errants in the midst of an otherwise gruesome struggle. Is this really consistent with the facts? 217.42.104.171 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What stage of the war are you interested in? The facts varied greatly over the course of the war. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Aces Falling: War above the Trenches, 1918 by Peter Hart, published this year by Weidenfeld and Nicholson. By the end of the conflict the 'material battle' that had for so long affected the forces on the ground had reached into the skies. All glamour ended in 1918, as the air offensive became little more than an auxilliary to the war on the ground. The chief emphasis was on countering enemy operations with straffing missions, skimming dangerously low over the trenches, or bombing raids, virtually around the clock. In Hart's words "The lustre of the war in the air slowly faded until it became just another slaughterhouse in the all-encompassing mayhem that was the Great War." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is the story of the duel of Ernst Udet and Georges Guynemer, two of the greatest aces in history. They had a chivalric duel in 1916 with Udet's gun jamming seemingly beyond repair. When Guynemer noticed this, he waved and flew away. It was the nature of the dogfight and the technology of the time that preserved chivalry. We didn't see this in future aerial wars because technology forced battles to become either extremely one-sided or manifest in overpowering numbers. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In researching some 800+ articles on this subject, I have never found any verification for any such incident as the one attributed to Udet and Guynemer in 1916. I would note that while fighter planes were so new that no one had yet figured out how to use them (which means, en masse), individual combats were the norm, a la medieval knighthood. Once Boelcke and others came up with dedicated fighter squadrons fighting from a formation (Autumn 1916), whatever chivalry there was was quickly extinguished. The only vestige left was the honorable military burial of fallen enemy aces, with the attendant notification of their surviving friends. That lasted until war's end.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

More Freikorps
First of all I would like to thank Clio the Muse for the answer she gave to my Freikorps question (posted by 193.130.15.240), not only because it was so admirably complete but because she was the one person to take my request seriously. I now have other questions Clio on the Freikorps that I am sure you will be able to help me with. You said in your previous answer that they were not motivated chiefly by politics. If so, why did they take part in the 1920 Kapp Putsch? Also, having shown in this episode that their loyalty to the republic was uncertain, why were they not banned afterwards? Of course anyone else apart from Clio is welcome to provide an answer. I only ask that I am spared the lectures. Apolla Delphinos (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with Clio that their motives were not chiefly political. Members of the Freikorps shared a sympathy for militarism, nationalism, and authoritarianism. This amounts to a political posture. As Clio rightly said, they shared a desire to defend and uphold the prestige of the military, but I would argue that this is a profoundly political motive.  The Kapp Putsch was a response by the Freikorps to a government order disbanding the Freikorps in general and the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt specifically. Of course, violent resistance to government policy and the attempted overthrow of a government are profoundly political acts.  The government did make further efforts to ban the Freikorps after the putsch, but members of the government felt a need to tread carefully for fear of provoking further resistance.  However, the failure of the putsch largely discredited the Freikorps, and they were not a serious threat to the republic after the defeat of the putsch (although many of their members drifted to the Nazi Party in subsequent years).  Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Apolla, in your new guise! Why did some Freikorps units take part in the Kapp Putsch? The simple reason is that they felt betrayed by the politicians, the victims of a second 'stab in the back.' Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, signed the previous summer, the government had little choice but to reduce the armed forces, standing at some half a million soldiers, to 100,000 men by April of 1920. Most of those in the Freikorps had little prospect of obtaining employment in the new professional army. Their discontent was an opportunity for the politically motivated among them to energise and direct the rest. Ernst von Salomon, himself a Freikorps veteran, was to write about this "It was no inspired controversial political ideal that spurred us to protest. The actual cause lay in despair, which is never articulate."

The Freikorps, despite the Kapp Putsch, were not banned for the simple reason that they were still needed. No sooner had the Putsch collapsed that the Ruhr rose in revolt, with a Red Army made up, it is thought, of 80,000 men. Once again the volunteers were set in action, headed by the Ehrhardt Brigade, its role in the Kapp episode notwithstanding. They and the other formations were disbanded not long after, many subsequently disappearing into the Black Reichswehr.

And, Marco, you might be interested in reading "The Origins of the Freikorps: A Reevaluation" by B. Scott in the University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History, 1 (2000), a interesting rebuttal to the argument of R. G. L. Waite in Vanguard of Nazism: The Freekorps Movement in postwar Germany, 1918-1923. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ring
My band recently got first in the nation at BOA and we are going to have the opportunity to get rings. I already have a class ring that I wear on my right hand ring finger. Is there a correct finger I should wear it on when I already am wearing a ring? Thanks, schyler (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are many rules about this, though your school may have some conventions. A lot of adult males wear "society" or "achievenment" rings on their little finger. In much of North America, no rings except for wedding rings, are worn on the fourth finger of the left hand, and I can't recall any male who was not a biker wearing rings on the forefinger of either hand, or on the thumb. For females, there are generally more choices, though the thumb is not usual, and the fourth finger of the left hand is also usually reserved for wedding (and/or engagement) rings. There may well be other views. Bielle (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few practical considerations that you might take into account, though. You may or may not want to have a hand that is free of rings for some reason (eg not wanting them to catch on stuff when feeling into small spaces). On the other hand (no pun intended) rings worn on adjacent fingers can cause each other to wear, and also under certain circumstances they can give you a nasty nip in that sensitive web between the fingers. These are minor considerations though. Congratulations on your win! SaundersW (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)