Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 December 29

= December 29 =

Can u.s.a. presidents run for other political offices after two terms?
I wonder why presidents don't run for senator or u.s. representative or governor anymore. In spite of my question in heading, I'm pretty sure it's not a legal issue, and I would be surprised if it were usually a personal iissue-politicians like being in office. I'm really wondering if there is some kind of social norm inside the political parties against them being in office again.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:EC12:5D10:7A0C:86E6 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you know it used to happen   . However while there's probably some social norm barrier in former presidents running for Congress or to be Governor, I'm not sure why you don't think personal reasons are a big factor too. After 8 years of a very tough job, why would they want to do something that will be seen by many as a step down with a lot less power and many of the headaches that you had before and a lot of baggage like to follow you. (As one of the sources notes, even if the legislative and judicial branches are nominally equal, it's questionable that the role is since even the Supreme Justice can't really do much without at least 7 others agreeing and for Senators it's even worse.) Especially when you can retire in luxury by giving the occasional speech   ? I mean if you really want to try and do something significant, is such a role even likely to be the most productive method when by merit of who you are, you can easily try to do a lot outside of a direct political role  and probably avoid some of the baggage that comes from it too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * President Taft served as a supreme court justice after serving as president -- so I don't see what the big deal is! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E5C0:72CB:AF6F:FD32 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as I said it did happen a while ago although even then it seemed to be rare. But in any case, times have changed. Given the changing natures of the roles and the world and politics, it's likely to be seen fairly differently by everyone including the person themselves now. Note also that most or all of the cases were before the pension one of the sources I provided mentions. Okay Taft was eligible for the proposed Carnegie pension but as the source notes that idea wasn't without significant controversy anyway. And while I don't know much about the situation at the time, it seems unlikely the president had the same opportunity to make money off the speech circuit. So presidents who weren't from sufficient means may have needed a job to support themselves and their family. I don't think this was a significant reason for any of the people who did take on such roles after their presidency but it does illustrate how things have changed. Note also in the particular case of the Supreme Court, it's hard to imagine an easy passage for any of the previous few presidents going all the way back to Nixon or earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Taft might have seen the move to the Supreme Court as a step up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Might have seen? It's more like "clearly saw"; the intro to Taft's article says President Harding appointed Taft as chief justice, an office he had long sought, and his biography on the White House website says To Taft, the appointment was his greatest honor; he wrote: "I don't remember that I ever was President." --  01:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Taft its a somewhat unusual example in that he doesn't seem to have even been that interested in the presidency although it's clearly not simply a matter of opportunity since he rejected earlier appointment offers to the Supreme Court albeit not as chief to stay on as a politician as our article notes. That said it also notes "Taft had a condition for Harding: that having been president, and having appointed two of the present associate justices and opposed Brandeis, he could only accept the chief justiceship". I can't be bothered hunting down the source and I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere so I'm not sure how much of it related to it being awkward being in such a position and how much of it was it was felt unseemly but it does suggest even with Taft who really wanted it,  going from one role the other was seen as complicated, although it's possible it would also apply in the reverse. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] As Nil Einne notes, the prestige is a big thing, especially given the rise of the Imperial Presidency and the consequent vast growth in executive power/influence in the past eighty years. For example, consider Obama's decision several months ago to require schools to permit children to use any restroom they pleased; even if today's social climate had existed in 1916, a similar decision by Woodrow Wilson would have made people question his sanity, since the POTUS didn't have the ability to change school policy.  When you can do a lot of stuff by decree, it's a huge come-down to become one of 535, whose decisions can still be ignored by the president even if the 535 override his veto, and whose enactments are subject to override by a Supreme Court that has seen an even greater increase in power.  Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * John Quincy Adams served as US Representative after serving as President. While there's nothing wrong with it, after being a President, who would want to be anything else? It's "beneath" them. Except for JQA, he was awesome. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. John Quincy Adams was one of two abolitionist Presidents, and both died as a result.  John Quincy Adams fell orating against slavery.  He got so worked up in his indignation against this injustice that he suffered a stroke on the floor of the House, and died a few days later of complications of the stroke.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another aspect of this is political parties tend to view the "lower" offices as farm teams for training up promising young politicians. The parties prefer that a former President "make way" for others to gain political experience. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that's a hard-and-fast rule, but it is kind of implied in the Constitution from the minimum age requirements for House, Senate and President respectively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Bretwisch, Mechlenburg-Vorpommern, Germany
Do you have any information on this town in Germany? It may also be spelled Britewich. It may have been located or now located near Kasbohm, also in Mechlenburg. An ancestor was born there in 1843. I'd like to know where on the map is was and where it is today 2016. -- Mossie75 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Bretwisch is a village SW of Süderholz here. The German language Wikipedia has an article de:Kirche Bretwisch, about the village church. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Google Earth gives me a tiny hamlet named Kasbohm here, so that's in the area. Also note it's spelled Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Are canned/dried/frozen fruits and vegetables washed?
How are these things processed in the factories? Or does it vary by the factory? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it varies, because there are untold thousands of food processing factories around the world. Note that canning depends on raising food to boiling temperature, which necessitates water. Food drying is arguably the most low-tech, and in theory could have the least intervention between field and consumer. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Processed fruits and vegetables generally have less pesticide residue than fresh conventional produce".  Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're always washed before any further processing (in fact, in the USA and probably all other civilized countries, this is required by law). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A source for that would be edifying. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the FDA has its regulations on this subject open to public viewing. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then providing that link should be easy for you. When you find it, you can remove this WP:HAT. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While searching for an answer, I came across this somewhat dated paper regarding an investigation into an outbreak of typhoid. In that instance, the source fruit had all been washed, but it is implied that the contamination took place from the water used to do the washing (it came from a shallow well and the processor then chose to close rather than find another water source). I only offer this to point out that, even if the package says the product has been washed, that doesn't mean that it's been washed to your personal standards (or to the point of preventing illness). Of course, this Washington Post piece mentions that stuff like pesticides are often absorbed by the fruit - washing wouldn't help. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but this piece suggests that pathogens can similarly be "sealed into" the vegetable. Damned if you do and damned if you don't! Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In NZ and Australia they are . (These sources don't mention the regulations but do treat it like a given.) I found some US regulations here . While they don't explicitly mention washing, they seem to imply it. E.g. canned ripe olives .... properly treated to remove the characteristic bitterness. Canned sauerkraut .... made from clean. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)