Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 14

= September 14 =

constitution
how well does the constitution address many of today's contemporary political issues? -sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which country's constitution and which particular 'contemporary political issues'?--Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the united states and any/all of today's political issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For whatever constitution, it's very much a matter of opinion, and this is not the place to debate it. Particularly since my opinion on the question is likely to be inflammatory, and I'm tired of defending it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to the original question could fill volumes. Without more context, it would be very hard indeed to give you anywhere near a succinct answer.  Dismas |(talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that if the so-called "strict constructionists" truly had the courage of their convictions, then they should rule the U.S. Air Force to be unconstitutional, since Article One of the United States Constitution clearly refers only to an "army" and a "navy" and "the land and naval forces"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One advantage of the U.S. Constitution is that the framers did not attempt to regulate every aspect of life, nor did they try to anticipate every possible development in the future. Compare with the recent European constitution boat-anchor.  (This is just a comparison; Europe faces a much more daunting task in attempting to closely link sovereign nations.)  Of course, the U.S. Constitution has given rise to endless legal wrangling and judicial interpretation.  And maybe a dynamic equilibrium is the best that can be hoped for in a constitution.  --- OtherDave (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

impending economic depresion of the US
how true is it that there will be a second depression soon and how bad do economists think it will be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.11.185 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "second depression"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine you can find copies of Ravi Batra's Great Depression of 1990 pretty cheap in used bookstores nowadays -- just look for it in the marked-down-to-almost-nothing pile, next to the Reader's Digest Condensed Books... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the United States has not had a major economic depression since the 1930s is actually an anomaly, not the norm. In other words, if one looks at the historical record, major economic depressions were regularly occurring phenomena under a capitalist economic system throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries in Europe and North America. See the Wiki article on List of recessions in the United States. Due to several factors, though, the United States has been spared this misfortune for the past 60 years. Some of these mitigating factors have to do with the fact that the United States was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II unscathed with its manufacturing sector intact and very healthy. There were other such things at play as well, that involve the basic nuts and bolts of how an economy works, as well as the fact that there were also policies that were undertaken by people who were in positions of influence in the US that have helped avert depressions and economic troubles over the years. However, this still does not negate the fact that, according to classic economics, any given country's economy will undergo periods of "readjustment", during which recessions or depressions will occur. Perhaps the most significant driving factor in the financial crisis that the United States is experiencing right now has to do with the over-inflated price of real estate, and what is happening now is that these over-inflated prices are now "readjusting" to a more realistic value, which means that many people are taking a beating by having payed more for their homes than they are now worth. See: United States housing bubble and United States housing market correction. Just one example of many to illustrate that there are certain trends in the economics of a capitalist economy that seemingly cannot be avoided. So, to address your question, there has not been just "one" economic depression in the past - there have been many. And is the US heading (or already in) another depression is a question that is answered either "yes" or "no", depending at least in part on the political motives of the person who is supplying the answer. Bush supporters would of course be inclined to deny that there is a depression, and anti-Bush people will insist there is. So, read up on what people have to say about it and come to your own conclusion, is my advice. For more information, refer to Economic crisis of 2008. Saukkomies 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there’s something wrong with the economy? Equity markets are diving; housing is going through a once-in-a-generation crash; the current account is still in deficit to the tune of 5% of GDP; household debt service ratios are record high; the federal debt is $10.6 trillion (prior to the $1.6 trillion Freddie/Fannie bailouts and whatever emerges from this weekend’s fiascos; call it $11 terabucks); and we no longer have any faith whatsoever in the credit ratings provided by Standard & Poors, Moody’s and the like. Aside from that, Europe and Japan are contracting; at $100 a barrel oil looks cheap; the statistical accuracy of LIBOR is being questioned; and the WTO Doha Development Round is failing. So, if real domestic demand contracts year-on-year in the first two quarters of 2008, it is just business as usual. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

religion
I need information on an event that happened in 1668 called La Purga in Italy concerning the Vatican and the Illuminati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.196.46 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the only references I've found come from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. Supposedly la purga was when the Vatican branded four scientists with crosses to cleanse them of their sins.  I have not been able to find any evidence that this event actually happened.  Judging from other allegations made by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code that are unsubstantiated or inaccurate or flat out fabrications, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially since the group normally called the Illuminati were founded in 1776. Algebraist 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

a curious hypothetical side-effect of Edward VIII's abdication
His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 links to the text of the Act, which includes:
 * His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.

This seems to imply that, should a future monarch (or other Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia) marry a descendant of the Duke of Windsor, the issue of that marriage would be excluded. Ironically, such a marriage would in effect be morganatic (a scheme that had been suggested for Edward but rejected because it had no precedent in British law)! (Footnote: this is purely hypothetical, as the Duke of Windsor had no issue.)

I'm wondering whether anyone knows of any parallel, intentional or otherwise, to this effect: that descent from a specified person can negate some benefit that the descendant might otherwise have. (Not counting any rules about miscegenation, i.e. descent from any member of a large indefinite group.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a typically poorly-drafted bit of British royal legislation: the intent was not to deprive all descendants of the Duke of Windsor of their rights, but rather to prevent the transmission of such rights through the Duke of Windsor. As you note, since he had no descendants, there will never be a situation in which the law applies; but if he had, the law would likely have been interpreted according to its intent, rather than its letter. As to your actual question: can't think of one, though laws of attainder come close. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, though, while he had no legitimate children, he almost certainly had children. There have been various claimaints over the years, and it's unlikely they're all impostors.  Even if the paternity had been proven and formally acknowledged by the royal family, they still could never have succeeded him had he remained on the throne, because they were illegitimate.  But it's possible that their descendants could marry into the royal family, and their descendants could find themselves in the line of succession.  If the law were interpreted according to its spirit and not its letter, one of Edward's descendants could indeed one day inherit the throne.  Hypothetically speaking.  Assuming the UK monarchy is around that long.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A specific instance of any person who claimed in public to be the illegitimate child of the Duke of Windsor would be interesting to hear about.--Wetman (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This claims that he had a son with an Australian Aboriginal woman.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember reading about that one. And I'm sure there was a Canadian and an American claimant as well.  Anyway, the real point of my post above was that it's possible that he fathered children outside marriage; and it's therefore possible that one of his descendants could become monarch (for the exact same reason that one of my descendants, or Vladimir Putin's descendants, or Jerry Seinfeld's descendants, could become monarch of the UK).  Funny how the law works sometimes: in this scenario any issue of his valid marriage, and their descendants, are excluded forever; but a descent from the product of a non-marital bonk is not a barrier.  What a shocking loophole! :) --  JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be a bit puckish: the abdication states that his issue and their descendants are ineligible to succeed, not his lawful issue. :) - Nunh-huh 05:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tks for the correction. It's still possible, though. Someone who was raised as the child of Mary and Fred Smith of Dry Gulch, but who was actually (although they never knew it) the biological child of Edward VIII, could produce a descendant who inherited the throne. Of course, nobody else would know about the connection either, so royal watchers would not be writing about how Edward's descendant had come to the throne.  Who knows who really fathered some of the Europoean monarchs that were accepted as the legitimate issue of their parents?  King Olav V of Norway was said to have been fathered by someone other than Haakon VII, and there's considerable evidence that this was true, but it didn't make any difference as far as the Norwegians were concerned, even it were true.  See my recent comment at Talk:Olav V of Norway.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are claims that the current resident on the throne of the UK is a descendant of Muhammad.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are estimates that the number of Charlemagne's living descendants is equal to the number of living humans, and he lived later than Muhammad. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Europe Demographics
What was the life expectancy and mortality rates in Medieval Europe? Thanks in advance, 220.244.72.108 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that over a long enough period of time, the mortality rate hits 100%. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They're all dead. Goshdarn, if only they hadn't been born so early! - 88.111.70.235 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Start with Medieval demography. Saukkomies 12:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But keep in mind that there isn't really an answer, since that sort of info was not recorded for the vast majority of people. And it would differ vastly in different places for different people at different times. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The mortality rate is obviously 100%, but there is a nice summary for life expectancy throughout history at Life expectancy. It pegs medieval britain at 20-30 years (btw, jesus christ that's short! it pegs people in the stone age at 33!) 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's life expectancy at birth. It is so low because many died in early childhood. If you made it through to adulthood you had a reasonable chance of getting through to old age. Contrary to popular belief it does not mean that a person of 30 was considered old. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That belief is, strangely, quite prevalent. I don't know if it's due to a misunderstanding of statistics, or just a general belief that the "dark ages" were primitive.  That same timeline makes the note that in the early 20th century life expectancy from birth was only 30-40; yet few people would argue that in 1920 people thought a man aged 40 was ancient!  Our modern life expectancies are so much higher because the infant mortality rates have dropped, not because people live twice as long.  Gwinva (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel in 1993?
I have some archival references dated April 1993, to a "J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel." My WP & web searches have turned up nothing for this surname in that capacity. The name might be written with diacritics that weren't used in the source text. Info or further search advice welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I found one search result using this Google query using the Dutch word for ambassador. It's about the tenth result on the page, beginning "J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv...". I don't know Dutch, but it looks to me like the link is to some sort of archive search page. Using their search functions I ended up with "Mr. dr. J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv, wordt binnenkort ambassadeur in de Turkse hoofdstad Ankara. Hij volgt daar mr. J. Warmenhoven op." on this page. It gives a date of "vrijdag 4 juni 1993". It seems you have to pay to read the article, but it's only €1.15. Hope this helps.--92.41.69.168 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does help! Apparently searching _Dutch ambassador "Jan Horak"_ places him in Ankara in 1995, but nothing before or since. Pending other results turning up, I think a "Jan Horak" being posted to Turkey after Israel is a likely option. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this article, on August 1, 1996 Dr. N van Dam became the new Dutch ambassador in Turkey, "succeeding Mr. dr. J. Horak, who took early retirement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all - I used the above input in a fax I sent to the Dutch Embassy in Tel Aviv, and was rewarded (next day, phoning to prompt a response) with the following: Mr. Dr. Jan ("Jenda") Nepomuk Jozef Bedrich Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel 1989 - 1993. That'll do it for my purposes. I also took the opportunity to share my impression that their public information staff might be interested in evaluating and possibly enhancing their web presence. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why aren't the Irwins getting a new father? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not sure I understand your question.  Do you mean the children of Steve Irwin?  That would be up to his widow as to whether she wants to remarry and also whether she and her potential new husband would want them to be adopted by the new man.  Dismas |(talk) 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing marriage to Steve Irwin's widow and have been rejected or something? (I *doubt* there's ever been a marriage proposal on the reference desk - but stranger thigns have happened.) Because why would it matter whether his widow was going to marry someone else or not? That would be the only way they would actually get another father. And, plenty of widows have raised perfectly good children.


 * Now, they could get a male nanny or have someone else int heir lives who would be a male role model for them, but if they did, that would be more in the realm of their private lives and it wouldn't necessarily be mentioned in the press if they did.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone proposed to Clio the Muse here once. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's ancestors and Stalin
According to our article Vladimir Putin, his grandfather was Stalin's personal cook. In Roy Jenkins' biography of Winston Churchill, on page 701, we find Stalin having an interpreter called Putin. Same person? Relative? Anyone know? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Putin's grandfather may have turned into a "personal cook", but according to Peter Truscott in Putin's Progress he was a "cook at the country houses used by Lenin and Stalin". It doesn't seem to me that a country cook would be likely to have the high level language skills needed by an interpreter, but I suppose it's possible. More likely to be another member of the Putin family, though. Strawless (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This in the St Petersburg Times, has the grandfather as a cook in the Astoria Hotel before becoming Lenin's & then Stalin's personal cook. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Spiridon Putin's biography in Russian Wikipedia is about to be deleted on account of the guy's lack of notability. He never worked in the Kremlin and was not a personal cook of Lenin and/or Stalin, as some tabloids have claimed. He worked at the Lenin Gorki sanatorium as one of the cooks for Lenin's wife and siblings who lived there. After WWII he was employed by the little known Ilyuchivesky rest home near Moscow. As it was run by the Moscow gorkom, the guests of Ilyuchevsky included the then-leaders of the Moscow gorkom such as Nikita Khrushchev and Ekaterina Furtseva. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin, IIRC, is actually quite a common surname in Russia. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Rasputin. Coincidence? We think not. Edison (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

philosophy
Relation between emotion and knowledge.... "there can be no knowledge without emotion...until we have felt the forcce of the knowledge of it is not ours" .... Discuss this vision of the relation ship between knowledge and emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.109.135 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word "discuss" in a reference desk question, people will think you are asking them to do your homework... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know that, or is it simply a feeling you have? --- OtherDave (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * heh heh. Saintrain (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well clearly 'discuss' is a word used in question setting. The above question is phrased in such a way as to make it obvious that 59.181.109 isn't asking the question themselves, but merely repeating a question that they have been asked. It may not be homework, but there's little doubt the request is not a question by the person posting, but a question from someone else that they have been tasked with answering/want to know the answer for. By way of helping you I would consider starting at Emotion, knowledge and experience (hopefully there'll be a segment within that shows experiences and emotional reactions/emotions combining). 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and helicopter travel
Are there any known occassions when Hitler travelled by helicopter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arri66 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Anton Flettner, a German engineer involved (amongst other stuff) in helicopter design. The linked German article implies that only one of his designs was built in some numbers after 1942.  The associated picture shows a rather tiny helicopter which was manned by a single pilot and conducted surveillance.  It would seem that technology had not progressed sufficiently to build anything heavier with a cabin for VIP passengers.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany actually had a couple of helicopter models that were produced during WWI that would have had the capability to carry a pilot and a passenger:

•In the Wiki article on the Flettner Fl 282 German WWII era helicopter, it describes how the B-2 model was able to hold a pilot and an observer/passenger. BMW managed to produce a couple of dozen of these helicopters before the factory was destroyed by Allied bombers. These Flettner Fl 282 B-2 helicopters were stationed in Ramsdorf until the end of the war.

•Likewise, the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 helicopter was also produced in limited numbers - about 20 - before the factory that produced them was destroyed by Allied bombing. The Focke Achgelis Fa 223 actually had a cabin that sort of resembles the more modern-day military helicopters, and was used to transport wounded soldiers, among other things.

•There were several other helicopter models that were only developed as prototypes (not put into production) by Germany during WWII, including the Focke Achgelis Fa 226, that were capable of carrying at least one passenger.

~ Theoretically, therefore, it would have been possible for Adolph Hitler to have been a passenger in one of these helicopters, however, I couldn't find a reference to such an event. Saukkomies 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We also have an article on the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 of 1936. In theory, it was possible, as Saukkomies says, but my guess is that these early helicopters were looked on as too dangerous for important people like Hitler to fly in. It's just as hard to imagine King George VI or F. D. Roosevelt going up in one. Strawless (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Toll free numbers and postage-paid envelopes
Is it illegal to call a toll free number with no interest in whatever they do, or return a postage-paid envelope without whatever they expect? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer and this may depend on jurisdiction, but I can't see why it would be. Unless you're calling the emergency services or somesuch, of course. Algebraist 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is strictly a business-type affair (without my finance at stake). I'd be too chicken to ever try prank calling emergency even if I wanted to. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How they would ever establish that you did it maliciously, I don't know, but even then, I doubt it would violate any law. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They might discover that I've called similar businesses a few times, and establish that I don't have interest in their products. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hell, in the US its encouraged ! -hydnjo talk 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several web sites and I know of several people who encourage/take part in/etc sending back junk mail in the included postage-paid return envelope just to prove a point to the company. From what I've read, credit card companies alot a certain amount of their budget to paying for the postage on these types of things.  There also used to be a web site or two that asked people to send to the web site, the free AOL discs that the people would receive in the mail.  They, the web site owners, wanted to send them back to AOL in bulk.  See the "Controversy" section of AOL disk collecting.  Dismas |(talk) 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be illegal to call the free lines in the US. Someone set up a phone machine to call a religious organisation's 1800 number continuously. They were convicted.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That might come under some form of nuisance call. But just phoning once for no particular reason - that wouldn't be illegal, would it?  The analogy is the religious groups that come knocking on your door.  If they're told they're unwelcome, they'd be foolish to keep on coming back.  But they don't know this till they knock the first time and discover what the resident's attitude is.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you installed Skype and then rang the numbers I doubt they could ever track you. Richard Avery (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)