Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

Reasons for moonshine being illegal? (in the U.S.)

Prohibition ended a loooooooooooooooong time ago, and while there are still dry counties, these are few and far between. From what I understand, producing moonshine both for personal use and commercial use is illegal just about everywhere. I can understand how the latter would require taxation and FDA regulation, but if I can make my own beer & wine, why can't I distill my own grain alcohol? 216.93.191.242 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not illegal to distill grain alcohol, it's just illegal to do it outside a licensed distillery. You can open a licensed distillery yourself if you have some money and are willing to jump through enough hoops. One hoops involves giving the key to the distillery, so they can pop in any time they like and make sure all your alcohol is accounted for and taxed. It's all about taxes, and has been since the Whiskey Rebellion. You're allowed to make beer and wine at home only in quantities toolow for you to sell profitably or them to think worth taxing. PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. If you want to distill legally, move to New Zealand. Hobby distillation is legal there. PhGustaf (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless done perfectly, distillation of alcohol can include fractions which could cause blindness and paralysis: [1],[2],[3], [4], [5]. Lead in the condensor can also be a problem. Is that a contraindication?Edison (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In addition to the tax issues, it can be dangerous to distil your own alcohol. If you do it wrong you can end up concentrating the really serious poisons rather than the ethanol. It is also easy to contaminate it by using dirty equipment (car radiators that still have traces of antifreeze, for example). See Moonshine#Safety. --Tango (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are 3 reasons I know of, the first two of which have already been listed:

1) Taxes: Even if for your own personal consumption, the government still thinks this means they lose tax revenue because you won't be buying as much taxable liquor.

2) Safety - poison: Drinking moonshine can be dangerous to your health, as noted previously.

3) Safety - explosion hazard: Mixing alcohol and an open flame has the potential to cause a fire and/or explosion. StuRat (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A man making poteen was let off with a caution in Ireland I believe because it was well made without any contaminants. So it obviously takes some work to do it properly. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxes are the motivation, remember: personal health and safety of citizens are justifications after the fact.--Wetman (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard "poteen" and thought you meant "poutine", and thought, "it's not that bad"!  :) --Sean 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Baron and Count of Thurn and Taxi

When were was the first member of the Thurn and Taxi family created Baron and later count? Was Leonhard I von Taxis (1544–1612) the first baron of Thurn and Taxi or Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624). Also was Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624) or Leonhard II von Taxis (1624–1628) the first count of Thurn and Taxi? Is there any dates of these creations?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobility of the Holy Empire with ratification of arms 31 May 1512 for two sets of four brothers who were cousins

confirmation of Nobility of the Holy Empire and ratification of arms (Jean-Baptiste) 5 Jan 1534

Grand Postmaster General to the German Empire 16 June 1595

Lord and Baron of the Holy Empire (Leonard I de Taxis) 16 Jan 1608

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Empire in the Netherlands, Lorraine and Burgundy 27 July 1615

Count of the Holy Empire 8 June 1624

Permission to bear the name and arms of the Counts von Thurn und Valsassina 24 Sept 1650

Prince de la Tour et Tassis 19 Feb 1681

Prince of the Holy Empire extended to all descendants 4 Oct 1695

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Holy Empire 2 July 1744

Vote in the Council of Princes of the Holy Empire 30 May 1754 by virtue of the dignity of Hereditary Grand Postmaster General 30 May 1754.

The place to look for confirmation of who was specified would be the Almanach de Gotha (pretty much available online in pdfs served by the Biblioteche Nationale de France via Gallica, but it's a bit tedious. - Nunh-huh 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's last theorem

One of the most famous citations of Einstein is something like "There are only two infinite things: Universe and stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first". Yesterday, when I was lying on my bed this statement strike me-my God, how come that no one saw this before-Einstein last theorem was that stupidity is a space with infinite number of dimensions or an infinite dimension by itself. I was thrilled; it's not every day that you have such important scientific discovery at hand. But then I start wonder, like Ferma, Einstein didn't leave behind the mathematical prove for us-or that he did? I burrowed Einstein writings, I found that many things could be infinite in theory, for example, mass could be infinite when traveling at the speed of light, but for that infinite energy is needed, and we know that there is finite amount of energy in our universe-so both can't be really infinite. And then it cross my mind again, stupidity is not energy, nor it has a mass, and it's infinite-so it isn't a practical, but what could it be? Maybe the contradiction between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics could be solved when applying stupidity as another dimension? It make no sense at all, and this only strength my mind that I'm on the right way, because Einstein arguments make no sense at all at the beginning-and then it turned to be that he was right. I spent the all night in a search for a solution, but in vein. My head became full of ideas, as like the spirit of Einstein himself reflected itself through me. Then I become tired and fall to sleep, while sleeping I had a vision: Einstein himself was speaking to me, as like he was trying to pass a massage to the entire universe through me, but I couldn't understand it as he was speaking German. So, could anyone prove that stupidity is infinite?( you may use mathmatical induction for that)--Gilisa (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-stupid: 1+1=2.

Stupid: 1+1=π or 1+1=a giraffe.

Even just sticking to real numbers that aren't 2 (or 10 if you want to go binary), you can come up with an infinite number of stupid examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's classic.--Gilisa (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though there are an infinite number of stupid examples, we can start with the definition of stupidity as a property of a person, action or belief that indicates low intelligence. Let's say (you may disagree with this) that actions are done by people and beliefs are held by people so niether can exist without people. So modify the definition to: property of a person that indicates low intelligence. There are a finite amount of people who each have a finite time to hold beliefs and perform actions and a finite observable universe that those actions could affect. So the limitations on people imposes limitations on the extent of stupidity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't directly contribute, but Einstein was not correct in everything he did, scientifically or otherwise. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, everything he said was not always to be taken to be a statement of scientific truth. See sarcasm and platitude, and depending on your opinion, wit. --Jayron32 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. He had a lively sense of humour (such as his explanation of relativity in terms of how more quickly the time goes when sitting next to a pretty girl than next to a less attractive woman). His humour was never intended to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Klimt

Please, do you know the name of this Klimt's painting? http://www.ikea.com/at/de/catalog/products/50149720 Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Water Snakes II ([6]) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What was my salary in the year 19XX worth now, in the UK?

I used to do a moderately well-paid but very boring job. I'd like to find out what the equivalent salary would be now for the money I earnt then. One way to do this would be to adjust the money from 19XX for inflation to get the 2009 equivalent. Another way would be to get some idea of what percentile my salary was at in 19XX, and then find out what the salary at the same percentile would be now. As people's incomes have been slowly rising by more than inflation, as the population's standard of living has slowly risen over the years, then the answer from this method will probably be different. Can anyone tell me where I could get the information for either methods please? 78.147.8.170 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This [7] site has a calculator to convert your income from year X (minimum 1930) to a theoretical current level. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Different jobs have had pay rise at different rates so if you want to know what you could earn doing that job now you would be better off looking for vacancies and seeing what salaries are on offer. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tango is correct. Certain jobs have seen salaries rise beyond average (and vice versa) because of (dropping of) government encouragement, scarcity, changes in technology, changes in relative pricing etc.

Risking looking stupid, I'll give an example with two ill-educated guesses:

I can't imagine that a plumber with, say, five years experience in 1960 could enjoy anything like the quality of life he could expect today.

Conversely, and perhaps equally stupidly, I also suspect that in 1960, a primary school teacher with 5 years experience would have had a relatively better income compared with society at large, than today. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Saint Rose?

St. Rose Catholic Church in western Ohio (specifically, Marion Township, Mercer County) was established in 1839 among primarily German settlers. Any idea which of the three Saints Rose is most likely (or least unlikely) to be the patron? I can't find anything on the already-linked parish website, and this document — the only other one that I can find that deals with the history of the parish — doesn't discuss the question either. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rose of Lima is your most likely Rose for an American church. Of the 3 listed, Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne is impossible: she was canonized after the church was named. The site you point to seems to indicate that the name arose from the flowers found on the site: they presumably picked a St. Rose afterwards. (I'm guessing they chose St. Rose of Lima because they're American, which would be even more likely if they're of the Dominican Order. But there are other Stse. Rose. The only way to be sure would be to write them. - Nunh-huh 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I emailed a related church yesterday — St. Augustine Catholic Church, a short distance to the east, to ask if their patron is the Doctor or the first Archbishop of Canterbury — so I was planning to email them, but thought it best to wait until Monday. FYI, the church has always been related to the Society of the Precious Blood. One other thing that I should have mentioned: it seems also to have been called "St Rosa" at one time, as I've seen that name used to refer to the crossroads community in which it is located, and "St Rosa" is the name over the entrance to the cemetery. Would this shed any light on the subject? I observe that we have no article on St. Rosa, and I'm assuming "Rosa" is a variant of "Rose". Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since St. Rose of Lima was Peruvian, her Spanish name would have been Santa Rosa de Lima, so I think that supports her as the likely namesake. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Before posting this thread, I'd not observed that St Rose Philippine Duchesne hadn't yet been canonised. I assumed that "Rosa" would be sensible for the Peruvian saint, but the Italian name for the Italian saint is "Rosa", so I wasn't sure. Your reminder that St Rose of Lima is the patron saint of the Americas is enough for me: I'm only trying to put the church in the right subcategory of Commons:Category:Churches by patron saint, so original research isn't a problem. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Iambic pentameter

In Shakespearean England, did everyone speak in iambic pentameter? --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? --Tango (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All of Shakespeare's plays were written in iambic pentameter, which would seem to indicate that it was the main style of speech at the time. --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to compare with an old sitcom: watch how everyone talks in a strange 'stagey' way, pausing after every line to allow the audience to react. People no more talked like this in normal life than they talked in iambic pentameter: it's merely a convention of that specific type of drama, used to give a specific effect and match expectations.

This reminds me of something I read about American stage-acting of the 19th - early 20th century, something about the 'stagey' style of acting and talking which was utterly different from naturalistic acting or British stage-acting, or later film-acting. Anyone have links? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the iambic pentameter states in the first sentence: "Iambic pentameter is one of many meters used in poetry and drama." It remains to be researched if life in Elizabethan England was sufficiently poetic and dramatic for everyone to satisfy such conditions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In Molière's 17th-century comedy, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme Monsieur Jourdain is astonished and delighted to find that he's been speaking prose all along. Natural English speech often falls into iambic patterns.--Wetman (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of WP:OR, but if you read and most importantly watch a lot of Shakespeare, you may eventually notice something: While the main characters tend to stick to the pentameter, characters of lower stature (porters, guards, etc.) regularly deviate and speak in a normal parlance. I would be akin to the perceived differences in British accents today, such as Cockney or the Queen's. The majority of Shakespeare's patrons were the poor villagers, and they would have likely noticed the distinction between how they and the upper-class characters spoke. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If poetry were ere the spoken norm
The iambic pentameter the rule,
Then those of us who lacked a sense of form
Would find the strain of speaking far too cruel.
And scholars then would rule the world with dread:
You'd need one every time you bought some bread.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find a number of speeches by Queen Elizabeth I online. In contrast to the speeches of Shakespearean leaders, none of the real-world speeches by Elizabeth are in iambic pentameter; all are in prose[8][9][10].--Lesleyhood (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

death sentence and president approval

Does the American president have to approve any death sentence in USA or that he must approve only soldiers death penalties?--Gilisa (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three different cases:

1) State death penalties (this is the common type): The President has no authority over the use of these. In this case the governor of the state in question has the right to grant pardons, but is not involved in the original sentencing.

2) Federal death penalties (outside the military, extremely rare): The President does have the authority to grant pardons, commute sentences, etc., but only after the original sentencing.

3) US military death penalties (extremely rare): In this case the President is in the chain of command above the military courts, and could theoretically influence the original sentencing. However, they are typically very "hands off" at this point, in order to not be accused of inappropriate influence over the court. After sentencing, the President again has the right to pardon sentences, commute them, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln, from 1861-1865 issued numerous pardons, including for civil convictions for treasonand military convictions for desertion. Edison (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean civilian convictions for treason? "Civil" in this contest means the opposite of "criminal" rather than the opposite of "military". --Tango (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference says Lincoln issued "civil warrants" to pardon those convicted in "civil courts." Edison (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "civil" in this context is "civilian." These were federal courts dealing with charges related to the war - the sort of thing that would be included in StuRat's second type.B00P (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about soldiers, but for ordinary citizens, the prison system may carry out a death sentence without seeking the President's involvement at all. The President has the power to grant clemency, which converts the death sentence into a lesser sentence. In theory, a President could issue a Blanket clemency order converting all death sentences to life-imprisonment sentences, but as far as I know, no President has ever come close to doing anything like that. As our Blanket clemency article says, though, Governor George Ryan of Illinois issued a blanket clemency to all death row inmates in 2003, and I recall at the time that other governors considered following suit. --M@rēino 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See also Capital punishment by the United States federal government - the last execution of a U.S. soldier occurred in 1961, so it isn't much of an issue. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It might be an issue in a couple of years when that guy from Fort Hood gets the needle or the chair or whatever is used these days. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian Democratic Parties

I have two questions to ask you:

1. Are Christian democratic parties left-wing or right-wing?

2. Is the Christian Democratic Party in Australia left-wing or right-wing?

3. Is Christian democracy left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually Christian Democratic parties are conservative, i.e. right, although exceptions might exist. The party in Australia is right-wing (see Christian Democratic Party (Australia)). For more information, you can consult Christian democracy. Regards SoWhy 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in what ways they may not be useful in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of our article on Left-right politics may shed some light. Also the last paregraph of the section Contemporary usage in the United States specifically mentions Christian conservatives in general identifying with the right-wing. Vespine (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many Christian Democrats would claim, at least in some circumstances, to be centrist, progressive or non-secular liberal rather than conservative: you really have to look at the specific political universe in which they operate. The predecessor to the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union in Germany was in fact called the Zentrumspartei or Centre Party aligned between the Nationalists on their Right and the Social Democrats and Communists on their left. In the Low Countries (Benelux), where party alignments have changed in the last decade or two, the historical position of Christian Democratic parties was to the left of the Liberal parties on economics, taxes and social welfare, but to their right on issues such as secularism/clericalism and moral regulation. In the post-war Fourth French Republic, a similar position was taken by the Mouvement Républicain Populaire (MRP), a Catholic party which grew out of the Resistance and collaborated with the Socialists and the Radicals. There's no space here to expound at length on Social Catholicism, Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno, but (like Monsignor John A. Ryan in the United States) many Catholics sought a non-Marxist response to the atomising effects of capitalism, industrialism, urbanism and modernisation that would restore the solidarity and mutual support of rural societies. However, what had been the historical positions of the parties over much of the 20th century has changed in recent decades. Often the Christian Democrats grew at the expense of more-right-wing parties (as in Germany and Italy) and by default occupied the right-hand slot in their nations' politics. In a basically secular country like Australia without an established Church, the Christian Democrats are usually right-wing groups focused on moral/religious issues such as abortion, homosexuality and pornography. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a few examples of Christian Democratic parties siding with the left in Latin America (such as in Uruguay). However, contemporary Christian Democracy is generally identified as right, centre-right or centrist. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Antigone

In the original Greek, did Antigone rhyme or have a standard meter? --75.15.163.184 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek tragedies were written in various meters for different scenes and characters (the chorus had a different meter than the main character, for example). I don't think they rhymed, just because rhyme is not usually a feature of ancient meters, which depend more on the aesthetics of syllable lengths. Antigone was the same, it didn't have one standard meter. It's like Shakespeare that way, minus the rhyming. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This page in an introduction to the play discusses matters metrical. --Sean 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)