Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 16

= September 16 =

Mexico's Independence
I am curious; didn't Mexico win independence from French this very day? If not, then what had happened in Mexico that they celebrate today? 66.230.106.85 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * France? You mean Spain: Mexican War of Independence Fribbler (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * France came later; see French intervention in Mexico. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking possibly of the Battle of Chapultepec? 68.31.82.188 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read Grito de Dolores? That's what is commemorated on the dieciséis de septiembre. —Angr 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confusing Sept. 16 with Cinco de Mayo. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

pattern of human
pattern of human, that called is 423 what is 4? what is 2? what is 3? everybody will passed this. maybe from philosophy tibetian. please explain to me..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.37.88 (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is the riddle: What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the middle of the day and three legs in the evening? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) That most likely refers to the old riddle, "what walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs in the day, and three legs in the evening?" The answer is "humans" -- we crawl around as children (4 "legs"), walk upright as adults (2 legs) and lean on canes when we get old (3 "legs"). I doubt it has a lot to do with Tibetan philosophy, but then again, it's not like I know much about Tibetan philosophy. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a Greek riddle, see Sphinx. It could have pre-dated it's appearance in Greek plays, but I've never heard of it being Tibetan. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sphinx was Theban not Tibetan. D AVID Š ENEK 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Next you're going to tell me that Shakespeare didn't write his plays for lesbians! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Claude Pepper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says that he did? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fed's balance sheet
Pursuant to my question from yesterday, I read the section on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System (Fed). If you look carefully at the assets and liabilities listed on the balance sheet, you find loans under the Term Auction Facility (mostly to shaky investment banks backed by questionable collateral) listed as assets. Because these loans (which look more and more like handouts) are listed as assets, they only make the Fed's balance sheet look stronger. So the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints on the amount of money the Fed can use to bail out financial firms. (The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury is a separate issue.) What I am trying to figure out is, how can there be a financial crisis if the Fed has an unlimited ability to bail out any financial firm? I sort of understand the issue of moral hazard, but why is it even an issue? Why doesn't everyone continue to play high-risk financial games, and why isn't the Fed playing backstop, boosting its balance sheet (on paper) with hand-outs to all of the players? What might happen if the Fed did this? Is there a concern that foreigners might not want to hold dollar assets if the Fed hands out dollars too freely, or is there some other practical constraint on the Fed's action? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If people don't pay back the loans, the Fed loses money. The state doesn't have unlimited funds - if would end up having to raise taxes or cut public spending to cover the losses. The Federal bank isn't creating new money to hand out, it's lending existing money - printing billions of new dollars would cause hyperinflation (which would be roughly equivalent to a tax on people holding cash). --Tango (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Fed is different from the state. I don't think it's state-funded.  Also, I am fairly certain that the Fed can create new money. I am hoping that someone on the desk will be able to answer my question.  The world's most important central bank should not be so mysterious!  Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Federal Bank can make new money, but that's not what it's doing in this case. You're right about the Fed and the state being separate, I'm not entirely sure what would happen if the Fed went bankrupt, but I expect it would end up costing the public money in some form or other (via either tax or inflation). --Tango (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Federal reserve notes (i.e. money) are backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government". See Federal Reserve Note. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which means almost exactly nothing - it's fiat currency, it has value because people believe it has value. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear this criticism of the Fed a lot and it makes no sense to me. Nothing has value unless people believe it has value. More fundamental is supply and demand. The dollar and other "fiat" currencies are valued because they are kept relatively scarce (or not depending on monetary policy). —D. Monack talk 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most things have value because they serve a purpose. A brick has value because I can use it to build a house. A dollar only have value because the person selling bricks is confident that the person selling him his dinner will accept it as payment, and so on ad infinitum. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it means that the government may levy taxes or borrow to pay the fed's debts (if the fed goes bankrupt). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What debts? The only thing the Fed has to redeem a dollar for is a new dollar. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on central banking but I disagree with your comment that "the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints . . .". If the fed (or anyone else) lends money (to anyone) then it will take cash out of its bank account and give it to the borrower (so the fed's assets will decrease) and then record the loan as an asset (so its assets will increase again). The net effect to the balance sheet will be zero (calm down, nitpickers). I think you perhaps understood the handing out of a loan to strengthen its balance sheet, right?


 * If the loan is not worth the cash that was handed out then you would expect its balance sheet to deteriorate (assuming the loan value is recorded correctly). So when I said earlier that the fed is limited by its own balance sheet, I was saying that if the fed buys risky assets and loses more than $40bn (its capital) then it will be unable to meet its own liabilities, which are primarily federal reserve notes and deposits from other banks. Defaulting on these liabilities would really be an extreme event. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the US government could, in theory, default on its liabilities when they fall due, I think it would be far more likly to raise funds by issuing more bonds, in effect rolling over the debt (this happens all the time), or by increasing the money supply (metaphorically "printing more money"). Of course, this is not a "get out of jail free" card, because if a government does this too much and too often it fuels inflation, devalues its currency, and will eventually lead to its bonds being downgraded. There is no rule that says government bonds must be AAA rated, and the Main issuers table in our List of government bonds article shows a correlation between a government's financial liabilities as % of GDP and the rating of its bonds. So there are constraints on national debt, but they are soft rather than hard constraints. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all, and particularly to Zain Ebrahim and Gandalf, whose answers were enlightening. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bible
Hi! Is New Testament also part of old Jewish literature or not? I think that only Old Testament is part of it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Tanakh. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, the Tanakh (called the "Old Testament" by believers in the "New Testament") is the basic Jewish scriptures, what Jews call "the Bible." The "New Testament" is not Jewish scripture, and it is not Jewish literature; it is not part of the Jewish religion. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews. —Angr 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without splitting hairs nor delving exhaustively into the "Who-is-a-Jew?" issue: The noun "Jew" or adjective "Jewish" can mean either an ethnicity or adherence to the religion Judaism that does not avow the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and still awaits the [first] coming of the Messiah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, wait a minute here. Luke was a Jew. He was a Jew with a classic Greek education, but that does not mean he was not Jewish. It's just like comparing him to a modern Jew with an education in a public high school in the United States, who would still be considered a Jew. Saukkomies 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to split hairs that far, technically, Jesus himself was a Jew. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course he was. What else would he have been? Saukkomies 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's nothing to do with splitting hairs. Jesus was totally, completely, 100% a Jew.  Some Christians (and I stress "some") seem to conveniently forget this when it suits their anti-semitic arguments. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if Jesus was God, and therefore not human, then he wasn't really a Jew, was he? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that the dogma says he was simultaneously totally human and totally divine. In his humanity he was a Jew.  In his divinity, he was of no ethnicity or religion; rather, the source of all ethnicity and all religion.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all dogma says that; monophysitism for example. I can never sort out who believes what kind of christology but debates over Christ's exact nature is pretty much why there are so many types of Christian churches. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's put it this way. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was a Jew.  And as far as the other Jews of the time were concerned, he was a Jew.  It was his alleged claim to be King of the Jews that saw the Jews and the Romans collaborate to have him put to death.  And what was put on the cross - a sign with the Latin initials INRI, which stood for the Latin equivalent of "King of the Jews".  The sign was also in 2 other languages just so that nobody had any doubt what his crime had been.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are two issues here. Was Jesus considered Jewish at the time? The answer to the question is surely yes. In Christian theolology, was Jesus Jewish is however a different question. Aside from the issue of monophysitism there is also the issue of did Jesus actually inherit any genetic material from Mary? I'm not sure if there is any consensus on this even among the modern Chalcedonian believers. If you believe Jesus did not have a father then it's conceivable you can believe Jesu's birth mother was not his biological mother. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, I have given this some considerable thought. My first reaction was, of course - the New Testament is NOT part of old Jewish literature. But then after some thinking, and delving deeper into Angr's comment, I could see how one could argue that the books of the New Testament do belong to the broader category of writings done by ancient Jews, and could therefore be considered to be part of the legacy of historic Jewish literature. On the other hand, even though the authors of the New Testament were Jews, they were also Christian, and there is a difference between these two things. It would be similar to saying that Gautama Buddha was a Hindu, which he was, but he was also the founder of Buddhism. And his teachings belong to Buddhism, not to Hinduism. So, to come full circle, I have to return to my original presupposition that the books of the New Testament are not Jewish literature, but Christian. Interesting quesion, Atacamadesert. Saukkomies 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify: some of the New Testament is Jewish literature (i.e., written by Jews and reflecting a Jewish world view) but it is not Jewish scripture. Keep in mind, that while Jesus and most other early Christian figures were Jewish, authors of the various books of the New Testament may or may not have been Jewish. —D. Monack talk 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, every single author of all of the books contained in the New Testament were Jewish - that is, if they actually existed. Saukkomies 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The authors all existed (that is, someone had to write them), it just may be that they are not who the Christian establishment thinks they were (that is, not Matthew the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, James the Just, Jude, brother of Jesus, etc.). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saukkomies, it is not at all certain that Luke was Jewish, at least by birth. According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "many considerations support the early Christian tradition that the author [of the Gospel according to Luke] was the physician Luke, a Gentile convert and friend of the apostle Paul (Col 4.14; compare 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24)." Now if Luke went through the procedure of converting to Judaism in order to become a Christian (a common practice at the time), then he counts as a Jew; but some people were content to baptize Gentiles as Christians without making them officially convert to Judaism first. If that's how Luke became a Christian, then he doesn't. —Angr 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edification, Angr. Certainly I must have overlooked that in my studies of the New Testament. However, I still hold that your previous statement, in which you said that: "most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews", is inaccurate. The most you could say would be that there is some speculation that Luke was not Jewish... Saukkomies 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true. —Angr 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Help me identify my vacation photos
I photographed this statue in the gardens of Chirk Castle and I can't find any information about it online. Does anyone know who sculpted it or who it depicts? There are more pictures at the Language, Miscellaneous and Science desks. Thanks, BenRG (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably not obvious in the thumbnail that she's clasping flowers to her chest and her foot is stepping on a snake. The snake especially made me think the statue alludes to some particular legend. I just had the bright idea of searching Wikipedia and the web for "stepping on a snake," which turned up a few references suggesting that it's symbolic of the Virgin Mary. I'm still not sure about the flowers, though. -- BenRG (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is one of four bronze nymphs introduced into the gardens by Lord Howard de Walden, who leased Chirk from the Biddulphs from 1911. "These were modelled by Antonio Luchessi, a leading sculptor of the Victorian age" says Garden Guide, but the name seems misspelled: either Antonio Lucchese or Lucchesi would be possible, but this name is unfamiliar to me.--Wetman (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very cool statue. Saukkomies 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly Andrea Carlo Lucchesi (1860-1925), a London born and trained sculptor of Italian / English parentage. There is a sculpture of his, depicting Queen Victoria, in Bath (the city, not the tub for royal ablution). I can´t find anything about an Antonio L.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrea Carlo Lucchesi's father was also a sculptor. From this, it appears that young women in their scanties were very much his (the son's) thing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. I found the Garden Guide page but I couldn't make it fit with what I'd seen. I saw a total of four statues in the garden: two that could be described as "naked nymphs," this one, which wasn't naked and didn't look much like a nymph, and one of Hercules which was even less nymph-like (though he was nude). I thought I'd missed two of the four nymphs and this statue was unrelated. But maybe Garden Guide got the description wrong (they got the sculptor wrong, after all) and this was one of the four Lucchesis. Or maybe there are only three. -- BenRG (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I googled together a starter entry for Andrea Carlo Lucchesi, using your illustration!--Wetman (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes me think of Eve, with the flowers and the apron. Stepping on a snake brings to mind Genesis 3:14-15: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." --Masamage ♫ 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread bookmark
You know how some old books come with a thread attached to the spine that one can use as a bookmark. Any idea if that thread has a name? Thanks. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article calls it a "bound bookmark". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, all I had to do was look (lazy son of a ..., that's me.) Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

US Constitution on creating new gov't departments
Does following the constitution have any implication on the ability of congress to create new departments, such as the Department of Education?

I was having a discussion with someone who was supporting the proposal to get rid of the Department of Education, and he supported his argument by saying "Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to establish the dep't? Don't you want [your candidate] to follow Constitutional limits on government?"

Is this person's argument logical? If not, what is the best response to this? My first inclination was to say "If the constitution doesn't mention it, the constitution doesn't apply to it," but I wasn't sure if 1) this was true, and 2) even if it were, if this would be the most accurate way to put it.

Any help much appreciated, thanks!

&mdash; Sam 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless the constitution (presumably of the US) specifically limits the ability of the DOE (as in "thou shalt not set up a dept. of education"), there is no bar on having a dept. of education. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTCC

Congress needs no express authority or permission to establish a cabinet level executive position. The framework of the Constitution implies powers to carry out the responsibilities. There is no limit in the Constitution express or implied setting up the Department of Education. The argument is almost comical. No one has even challenged its constitutionality by filing a lawsuit. Democrats, Republicans and Independents, legal scholars on both sides, the present Court agree on the DOE's constitutional status. A much more persuasive argument with some credibility would be that it is not politiically wise to have a DOE. The remedy is through the political system. Courts are barred from making such judgments.75Janice


 * I believe the Constitution is silent about all specific departments. Article II, section 2, says that the President may require the written opinion of "the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments."  Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary to carry out its powers, those of the government, and those of any "department or officer thereof."
 * So there's as much (or as little) rationale to abolish the Department of Agriculture, or State, or Justice. But leave Homeland Security alone; it's four years and counting, and they've got enough problems.  --- OtherDave (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In Canada there is a section that says anything they didn't think of in 1867 is up to the provinces in the future (so, education, highways, stuff like that). Is there something similar in the US? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The tenth amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States (meaning the nation), nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. Education was traditionally a state and local function; that's one source for the contention that the Department of Education is unconstitutional.  --- OtherDave (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, see Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; see also Wickard v. Filburn, which eviscerated the Tenth by making the Commerce Clause a blank check. I'd say Congress can erect executive departments and call them whatever it likes; but schooling is neither its proper concern nor constitutional.  That no one has sued to abolish the DoE may be because the courts (appointed by the same officers they're supposed to restrain; whose idea was that?) have ruled that mere taxpayers have no standing to sue for misspending of our money. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: Enumerated powers. —D. Monack talk 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering I owe the U.S. Department of Education over $14,000, I wish the Republicans would hurry up and abolish it already. —Angr 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Congress has been establishing new Departments since the 18th century (e.g. United States Department of the Navy). Your friend might as well argue for the abolishment of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and so forth as well, by his argument (I see no reason that education should be any special case). In any case, it seems rather unreasonable to me (not a Constitutional scholar, mind you) that the federal government would be expected to be disbarred from creating additional departments and agencies as needed for its own administration. Whether the departments or agencies have any specific power seems to me to be the Constitutional question—and one that has come up quite a bit—not whether the agencies or departments can exist. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

--98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust
This sounds really dumb, but when did it begin? Did it begin in April 1933 when organized boycotts against the Jewish people began. Did it begin in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws were introduced. Did it begin in 1938 when Kristallnacht and ghettoization occurred. Or did it begin in 1941 when mass murder was introduced as a method of eradicating the Jewish population. Also why does our article state that the Holocaust is generally regarded as the genocide of the Jews? Do they have a rationale for not including the very many other groups who were killed by the regime? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article Holocaust?  Corvus cornix  talk  21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Corvus and I got here at the same time.) When it began is a matter of judgment; the Holocaust was not a discrete event like the sinking of the Titanic or the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt.  You could make a case that it started when the Nazis came to power in January, 1933.  Hitler himself wrote, "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews."  When the official government advocates murder and has the means to carry it out, things like discriminatory laws, intimidation, and the technical aspects are tactics, not strategy.  --- OtherDave (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that the Nazi regime persecuted and killed its opponents and those considered "undesirables" on a variety of grounds (political, sociocultural, ethnic, etc.), and those on the basis of ethnicity ("race") could arguably be termed genocide. The use of the capitalized term Holocaust in reference to the extermination of European (or world) Jewry was chosen to reflect the pervasive, extensive, and fundamental scope of Nazism's antisemitism in theory and practice, word and deed, and the immense scale on which this genocide was enacted as "the answer to the 'Jewish Question'." -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as the Jewish victims are concerned it could be considered to have started as early as Kristallnacht or to have started after the Wansee Conference. I do not see why it should be limited to Jewish victims of the Nazis, since other groups were designated for genocide and also have millions of victims. Edison (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to have to have a definite year, I'd say 1942 when the policy of the Final Solution (this was when the Nazi goverment made the decision completely exterminate the Jews) was finalized, and the extermination camps were set up. But I agree, it's kinda silly to set a solid date, by 1942 one million Jews had already been killed. But that's as close to a definite date as you're gonna come. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)