Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 7

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.

October 7

What about the bottom 10%?

Will a Federal Discount Card providing up to a 50% off retail, utility and tax charges now be possible, acceptable or necessary or are there other known means to compensate those living at or below the poverty line who have suffered doubling and tripling of prices from deregulation and privatization of State and County services by Republican Governors and legislatures backed by corporate greed? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This Federal Discount Card is a thing of your own invention? There are, as a moment's thought would prove, many other ways in which such compensation could be given, were the legislature inclined to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a logical method - much better than standing on a street corner, checking names and handing out $1,000 bills. While the State legislature or County Commission is controlled by corporate greed the American Congress is always ready, willing and able to lend the poor a helping hand. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• (PS.To be fair Verizon is giving temporary discounts of as much as $50 off its regular $90 FIOS charge for 15/5 Internet and voice to coax subscribers to move from analog POTS and DSL to digital FIOS by also stating that subscriber can always return to analog POTS and DSL within the 2 year discount period if they are dissatisfied with FIOS, even though Verizon's motive for the discount is to phaseout analog POTS and DSL entirely whereas the motive for Congress in issuing a Federal Dicount Card is to prevent riot.) --DeeperQA (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're in America. Food stamps and Medicaid are essentially a version of what you mention. Your proposal would almost certainly be constitutional, in some form, under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Feasibly possible to pass in this political climate? Not really. NW (Talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are but perhaps more complimentary to a surtax, which the Congress is considering, in order to get the intended results versus trying only to generate a "we-are-doing-something" atmosphere. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use the Reference Desk as a WP:SOAPBOX to talk about your personal proposals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, DeeperQA, you are bringing up more and more similar questions daily, this is not a forum for discussion, it's suppose to be a place where you ask for references. Public awareness (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You right it is a place to ask for references. I have been commenting on articles in the news and forget sometimes that the articles here have their own talk pages. In that regard what articles here cover the 5% on millionaire proposal before Congress right now and the $5 debit card proposal by Bank of America? --DeeperQA (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages are equally inappropriate for commentary unrelated to improving the article. Also see WP:NOTFORUM. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the question might well change the perspective of the article just as pointing out that a $5 charge for a previously free debit card sounds like replacing Coke Classic with the New Coke or splitting up original Netflix service and charging 150% for both cost Netflix over 1 million subscribers. Do you prefer edit wars in articles or discussions to avoid them on the talk page? WP:There are no rules. --DeeperQA (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that your feelings about whether it is a good idea or not, or your feelings about whether the change is meaningless or ineffective are irrelevant, this is not a forum. If you choose to edit articles to put in your own opinions you will most definitely be reverted. There may be a random essay called "Ignore all rules" but Wikipedia is built on a foundation of no original research, simply saying you want there to be original research and opinion doesn't mean it will ever be considered acceptable here. Discussions on talk pages should not be about your opinions either, they should be about references, and how to use those references in the article. Chris M. (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will rephrase the question: Would the "pay in proportion to what you earn" as discussed here provide a superior option? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the same sense that a progressive tax system is "fair". Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US poor people (and fraudsters with only cash income) commonly get food stamps, commodities, low cost housing or housing vouchers, "scholarships" allowing their children free or reduced cost YMCA memberships, and subsidized or free school lunches. There are real estate tax breaks in many localities for senior citizens. The OP's "50% off card" would presumably require a merchant or utility to sell his goods for half of the regular price (I would assume it would not apply to sale items). Food stamps, by contrast, can be used for sale or discount items. In many cases, this card would require the merchant or utility to sell below cost. If many of the customers of a given store used this card, the merchant or utility would certainly be forced out of business. Fraud via straw purchases would be rampant, if there was no limit on the amount of goods that could be purchased. If Granny is poor and gets the card, then Sonny could take Granny to the appliance store and get his new bigscreen TV for half price, with a straw purchase by Granny. If Granny gets a set amount of foodstamps each month, there is less possibility of fraud. Edison (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The discount card would operate more or less identical to food stamps but include other items besides food as the primary difference. A discount card is simply a way to assure immediate and desperate relief at the bottom for the poor just as creating jobs is seen as a simple way to assure immediate and desperate relief for the middle class that would entail perhaps a 5% tax on assets. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA: This is not a proper way to use this page. This is a reference desk, the purpose of which is to ask for help in finding sources, or perhaps for objective answers to relatively straightforward questions. This is not the venue to hold subjective debates about class war in America. Gabbe (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not blame the OP for the question and debate but the members who provide their own opinions rather than citing references with supporting comments? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The earliest response to you wasn't particularly opinionated at all. They said your proposal would be constitutional but not really politically feasible. While there may not be a reference to the latter, your response: "Its a logical method - much better than standing on a street corner, checking names and handing out $1,000 bills. While the State legislature or County Commission is controlled by corporate greed the American Congress is always ready, willing and able to lend the poor a helping hand." is most certainly a statement of opinion, that your method is "better" and there is corporate greed. Your answers may not have been devoid of any opinion, but your responses to them were nothing but soapboxing. Chris M. (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the OP is looking for From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Purchasing a small kasher handwritten Torah scroll for personal use

I'm quite frankly not sure who or where one would ask about this, so I'll ask in Ref Desk (always a good spot imo). Where could one purchase a small (say about 1-2 feet tall) hand-written kasher (written on parchment made from the skin of a kasher animal) torah scroll that they could use for personal use (say Simchat Torah and also display)? I know they sell little electrically copied ones, [1] but I want something more authentic. And, if someone happens to find out where, could they be so kind as to tell the cost? (I'll assume they're not cheap) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you if you use the correct English term, "kosher", from now on. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Flinders does seem to be exhibiting pointy behaviour. Not done, old chap. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be one option [2] (rather pricey for new ones), but I wonder about ones produced in Israel. Can someone with better Hebrew skills than mine maybe locate such a service or two? It also looks like by small I meant 8 inches tall for the actual scroll (the other bits are taller :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 06:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that their main market is institutional buyers, not individuals. Get ten guys together pooling their money and it's not so bad. Interestingly, they use the "o." SDY (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some of the smaller Torot [3] are advertised for both communities (by which I would guess they mean Jewish community centers and possibly other groups), as well as private homes, though it's too late to call about those (they also don't have the measurements sadly enough). I wonder if they sell such tiny ones in Israel that can be imported. I think many of the sites for those would probably be in Hebrew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Da yau have samething against the letter "o"? Googlemeister (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It interferes with his sense of self-righteousness. --Jayron32 14:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Userbox for the user pages of editors who insist on spelling non-Latin-alphabet words in a transliteration other than the commonly used one? Then other editors could take a quick look at someone's user page and understand why he was using odd spellings on talk pages. Like if someone pointedly asked question at the Reference Desk about "Peiping," "Bombay," or "Mahomet." Many words in English were originated in other languages with different alphabets, and many words which came from the precursors of modern English were once spelled differently (. This would save volunteers on Ref Desk from doing Google Book searches or other research with spellings which are not used in references which might contain the information the OP says he wants. Or the editor could just refrain from trolling in the form of using idiosyncratic spellings. Edison (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that if SWMFP wants to use the original spelling he should also be using Hebrew characters? He should probably also be using Anglo-Saxon rather than the degraded Modern English.μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I come back from Yom Kippur to find a series of personal attack and uncivil remarks which I should get out of the way. While I did not initially know that the spelling I use is also appears to be accepted by all major American English dictionaries as well as Encyclopedia Britannica as an alternative spelling of "Kosher"; [Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kasher], [The American Heritage Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kasher] [Random House Dictionary and Encylopedia Britannica http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kasher] I am not going to do something childish demand or even ask for an apology for this unnecessary behaviour, but I will say that my respect for several editors whom I previously respected has been greatly diminished. I would also like to politely ask that if someone does not like the fact that I spell kosher as kasher, which, as you can see, is an accepted spelling (not knowing about something is no reason to get upset and uncivil about it) please ignore me when I use it (if you don't like something ignore it). I am not going to ask any further questions on these topics and will instead seek out a rebbe or another reference source. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Tishrei 5772 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider yourself fortunate that Cuddly is currently on vacation, as they would likely have been all over you about this oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I agree you've been treated a little unfairly and was thinking that earlier but was reluctant to get involved before it was clear you cared. In the other thread, where you said it was the proper term, questioning/discussing that claim was IMO an acceptable diversion which you basically brought on yourself. However in this thread, as you didn't make the claim and instead simply chose to use your preferred term I don't see anything wrong with it. You've been accused of WP:Pointy behaviour but this seems to be an assumption of bad faith as I don't see any reason to believe your questions aren't real questions. (Of course if you did ask them just so you can use the term 'kasher' then you are somewhat guilty of point behaviour.) I also agree while people are free not to answer your question, coming here to say they won't answer it seems unnecessary although I can accept them saying it one time just to let you know. (I do wonder what sort of answers those who said they would answer can actually provide, I'm tempted to try it myself not for pointy reasons but just to see what sort of answers.) I don't personally believe it matters much whether the spelling appears in a dictionary either, I think it's fine people have their own preferred terms things. If you had taken it too far and used so many alternative terms that no one could understand what you were saying that would be a problem. But since you wikilinked the one term you did use an alternative for this wasn't an issue.

Anyway I didn't think I could help but actually did find a few things from a quick search. [4] discusses new ones and [5] discussed used ones. Used ones are suggested to be $5000-$12000. (I'm presuming all currencies are USD.) No price is suggested for new ones but the page for used ones suggests they perhaps not surprisingly are usually cheaper. There are a few listed in the used one pages but you have to ask about prices and no idea on when the page was updated (there's a 2009 copyright but it may not mean much either way). They are suggested to be for communities rather then inviduals but I would guess if you're Jewish and looking for the scroll for religious reasons they will have no problem selling to you. [6] also has new and used ones (look at the top for [7] and [8]). Again no prices but several used ones are listed although I have no idea how often the site is updated (a 2002-2003 copyright notice but again may not mean much). Next [9] which offers used and new ones. The cheapest new ones seem to be two different Ari style ones for $25000. There are 2 or 3 used ones, the cheapest one is either $12000 or $11000 (I'm not certain the 11k one is a scroll). However I should warn you most of the items were added in 2005 - 2007 (including the used ones) so it may be the site is quite outdated by now. Finally I found [10] (from [11]) which only seems to list new ones. The cheapest seems to be in Beis Yosef style for $22000. Again no idea on dates.

As for the kasher issue, the first site specifically mentions it. For the other sites, I didn't see anything but I would guess it's something they've considered so just ask if your concerned. Most of the sizes I saw were within your range (I saw ~12-22 inches).

BTW if I may make a suggestion, I'm not sure whether a tiny size is going to make a new scroll much cheaper. The big cost is likely to be the labour and provided we aren't talking about an extremely large one, I'm not sure how much easier it's going to be to scribe a small one (in fact it could even be more difficult). Other factors may make a bigger difference. Also a number of these, even if they are US sites seem to be using sofers in Israel. You may be able to save a bit by cutting out the 'go-between', so to speak, but I'm not sure whether it'll make a big difference. As I mentioned the labour is likely the big cost and it doesn't sound to me like the sort of thing you can expect cheaply. (Well actually the cheaper option may be to get some random likely non Jewish person in China or India or some other low wage economy to do it but I don't think they'd be considered an acceptable sofer.)

From these results I would suggest if you're willing and able to spend ~$25k for a new one it's probably worth making inquiries. Similarly if your willing to spend ~$10k for a used one. (Perhaps down to $5k but it seems less likely.) The sites may be outdated and even if not, perhaps the people involved would be willing to make inquiries or keep a lookout for something that fits what you want if you're a genuine potential and suitable buyer. I also saw it suggested you ask your rabbi for recommendations or assistance but I guess that already occured to you.

P.S. Also came across [12] but no idea if it's what you want and [13] which is but doesn't list anything. Still perhaps worth considering if you're making inquiries.

Edit: Was planning to suggest eBay but didn't actually do it. But just did a quick search for 'torah (scroll, sefer)', include description, located in any country/region and there are some things which may interest you. Some used ones which are listed as kasher for under $10k (~$7k). Ironically some of these seem to be from the torahscroll.com site above (which supports my view it's worth making inquiries if you're willing to spend that much). One (or more) is from some tiferes-judaica but seems different from the site you found. But that and some others come from Israel. Unfortunately a few of these are not listed as kasher (they specifically mention it), I don't quite understand why but I think it may be either because they haven't been sufficiently analysed or because they may contain errors, you should of course make inqueries if you're interested.

Which is another thing I was meaning to mention, if your Hebrew isn't that flash you'd likely need to find someone to help you make inquiries (if you are contacting someone who doesn't speak English well) to help ensure you know what you're getting. So getting someone here to find Hebrew sites may only be of limited use.

Also just to be clear I didn't intend my eBay search to be complete but a quick test. For example while looking thorough one sellers, I found in their listings a bunch of stuff I originally missed called 'Sefer Torah' in the title (but torah scroll is mentioned in the details). I've modified my search but you still want to think if there's any terms you may be missing, like looking at whats on sale and what's used to describe it and looking at the sellers and see if there's anything in their listings your missing in the search that may be used to describe the item instead. (As may also be obvious from the descriptions with stuff like 'currier', some of them don't have great English spelling so things like scrol, seffer and may be even sofer are worth considering.)

Also I don't know whether eBay is that significant for local/intra-Israel selling. If there's some other auction or similar small time seller site in Israel which is commonly used, look there too, and if you don't know see if you can find out. (E.g. in NZ TradeMe dominates the market, Malaysia has Lelong and a few other places, Japan has Yahoo auctions and of course Taobao in China.)

Hope this helps!

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

dolls for sale

I'm interested in buying two Precious Moments, Inc. Native American vinyl dolls. Where can I find a legitimate place to do so?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well they have a shop on their official website which is linked in that article you linked. [14] You can also buy them at American Greetings from what I know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebay has a few. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked their website. They don't have what I want. Ebay mainly has the porcelain versions. The American Greetings website only sells eCards and printables.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried here? (which I found in a quick Google search, by the way)--TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't have what I want. What I wanted was one sitting Indian girl and one sitting Indian boy. I remember seeing them somewhere, I don't remember off the top of my head. Where can I find them?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually spoken to them? You may be able to commission them to find them for you.--TammyMoet (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 4s online order taking rollout

Is the purpose of syncing the online order taking rollout of the iPhone to a specific time to test the capacity of the ICload to handle a massive amount of simultaneous transactions or events? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a question for the Computing RefDesk. Also, I don't know anything about Apple products, so I can't actually answer your question. Sorry. :( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It's to increase the excitement of being one of the first, even though in this case the user is being one of the first to order, rather than being one of the first to hold the device, or unbox it, or whatever. If you think about it a bit, taking these orders is very important for Apple financially; more so than any client's use of the servers. A test takes place to see if the server system fails, and obviously it would be awful for Apple if there were a big server failure on zero day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is exciting but also disappointing - Apple answers the phone and say it can understand a sentence so I ask: "How do I buy a new iPhone 4S?" I hear computer keyboard in the background and eventually Apple says its sorry that due to heavy call volume... call back later. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fraternal lodge regalia? What's in this picture?

http://images.wikia.com/happymeal/images/f/fd/Fratlodge.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/happymeal/images/9/98/Fratlodge2.jpg

Can anyone identify the outfits on these fellows, as being from a particular type of fraternal lodge, or something similar? The photo is from what now is called the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada, but is currently unidentified. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not the Masons... my first thought was either the Grange, or the Orange Order. But the logo isn't right for either of those either. Granted, It is hard to make out the logo given the resolution of the photos... but it seems seem to be a red and white rose side by side (possibly with a thorn at the top)... so it could be some sort of Anglo-Scottish patriotic society. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This is actually from an archives, where I work as a reprographics specialist one day a week. We're planning to post it on our Flickr, but we don't have an ID yet, so it's solely a picture of 200-300 men and boys in front of a barn, for the time being. Not remembering right now if this image was from one of the glass negatives, or from a print, but the people in the original... their heads are about 2 mm tall in the first image. Not sure how much more detail I'll be able to extract, if I do a new scan. (We're also a few miles away from the storage facility, which is under renovation, and we're understaffed, so it's not as easy as I'd like.) The photo was taken by Ernest Alfred Parsons, so it's possible that they're an Anglo-Scottish patriotic society, as you suggest. We have a bit of a biography about him, but nothing that relates to organizations he was in.

Anyone else want to take a shot at it, please? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

One more suggestion... contact The National Heritage Museum in Lexington Mass (the website is: [15] ... it has contact info)... they specialize in the history of Fraternal Orders (Masons, Odd Fellows, Elks, Knights of Columbus, Grange, etc) and the Fraternalism movement in general. They may recognize the regalia, or at least give you some additional suggestions for your own research. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(US) Prohibition (against alcohol)

The recent Ken Burns series Prohibition inspired these questions:

1) He said "Prior to prohibition, female alcoholism was non-existent". I can't believe that. So, what was the actual rate before, during, and after Prohibition ?

2) The passing of the 18th Amendment is portrayed as a failure of representative democracy, with "representatives" voting for it even though they drank themselves (as did the majority of their constituents), out of fear of being targeted for "immorality" by dry forces. So, what percentage of the popular vote would have been for Prohibition ? Is it less than the 2/3 or 3/4 required to pass an Amendment ?

3) The enforcers seemed to feel free to not only destroy any seized alcoholic beverages, but also the barrels, trucks, etc., used to transport it. Was this legal ? StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Would they have even accurately have recorded rates of female alcoholism, before Prohibition? It seems like something families would keep hush-hush. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On #2, from an article abstract:

Prevalence estimates of women alcoholics first appeared in the late nineteenth century; and between 1884 and 1912, data on some 24,200 institutionalized alcoholics produced male-female patient ratios ranging from 3:1 to 9:1. These estimates, however, suffered from some of the same difficulties inherent in modern prevalence figures: "Hidden alcoholism" and a lack of treatment facilities caused the data to under-report women, while patient sex ratios varied by socioeconomic status. These data problems are largely unresolved, and securing reliable prevalence information on women alcoholics remains a frustrating matter for both the social historian and the modern alcohol researcher.

So it was hardly "non-existent", given that you had a pretty strong presence of women in treatment centers, and that number is clearly a low-ball estimate. This article discusses a number of more qualitative factors involved as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 98, but you seem to have confused your number 1 and number 2. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #3, if they seize the property the government then ends up with it. What are they going to do with it? Governments seizing property and then using it for themselves has an awkward connotation: it begs the question of whether the seizure took place because the government wanted the object, not because of a violation of the law. Destroying it makes it clear that the government's objective is enforcement, not theft. Out of curiosity, I know that drug busts still have similar consequences (i.e. if you're using a car to smuggle illicit drugs in NY, they take your car as well). Do they auction off the property and use the proceeds to pay for the defendant's legal expenses? SDY (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here in the US, I believe they auction it off and keep the money (not personally, but it goes into the general fund), so this certainly is a conflict of interest, and one must wonder if a city low on funds and about to lay off cops might find that those cops tend to plant drugs on out-of-state vehicles (whose occupants presumably can't vote for a new mayor or police chief to clean up the corruption). But I believe there are specific drug forfeiture laws which apply, now. My question is whether such laws existed during Prohibition or if the cops just did as they pleased. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on this is Asset forfeiture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the Prohibition era there. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as a "failure of democracy" is concerned, yes and no. As far as how many voters would have supported it, what is "it"? At least according to the documentary (one of Burns' better works), most Americans believed that what was being targeted -- "intoxicating liquors" -- referred to hard liquor; the assumption seemed to be that beer and wine would remain legal. So it's hard to tell what percentage of the population would have voted in favor of total prohibition (as opposed to partial prohibition), since the populace was never asked (and polling was very much in its infancy.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I said "failure of representative democracy", not "failure of democracy" in general. That is, if the margin of people who supported total Prohibition was less than what would be needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment (if, in fact, those Amendments were passed based on popular vote), then direct democracy would presumably have avoided this foolish mistake. I'm trying to establish whether this is the case, or not. I can't believe that such a major change in American life passed without anyone having done a survey. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, opinion polling was in its infancy; how would such a survey have been done? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Door-to-door, by phone, by letter, etc. A simple count of "for" and "against" letters to a newspaper would give some indication. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the simple count of votes "for" and "against" "dry" political candidates? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work because presumably the voters vote for and against candidates for many reasons, not just their stance on Prohibition. StuRat (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The US is not a direct democracy it is a constitutional republic, thus it does not matter what the people think on an issue, the elected officials can make any decision they wish on a matter. Public awareness (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my Q. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the graphics shown in the first episode, the majority of Americans were already subject to "dry" laws by the time the amendment roared through. But look at the problems they were trying to fix, and it's easy to conclude that it seemed like a good idea at the time. It lasted 13 year or so and then was repealed. That strikes me as a triumph, not a failure, of representative democracy. As interesting and informative as Burns' films are, he sometimes latches on to an idea and sticks with it even when it's factually questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

They also said those "dry laws" often allowed for the purchase of liquor for home consumption, and only were aimed at closing saloons. That seems more reasonable to me. (Having a bar you drive to and from, and expecting that people driving from the bar will never be driving drunk, is absurd.) Also, prior to prohibition, it was often only a short drive to a wet town. I do agree with Ken Burns often "not letting facts get in the way of a good story", though. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is just about nothing regarding the 1932 Democratic platform, which stood for the repeal of prohibition, and which was a stand that attracted a lot of "single issue voters". Here are the planks:

• We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent [sic] the conventions in the states called to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several states as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.

• We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.

• Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue. [www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595#ixzz1aImLSVrh Read more at the American Presidency Project]

μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strategic -Culture Fit in MNC (software of the mind) -articles

HI, I am a Research Scholar, searching out for the information on the Topic, "Software of the Mind"- Strategic-Culture Fit in Multinational Corporations of various countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheela Reddy (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a topic, but more like a rather obscure title. If you can decipher that into an actual topic, then maybe we can help. The "Software of the mind" part sounds like it's talking about human intelligence, while "Strategic-Culture Fit in Multinational Corporations of various countries" sounds like maybe it's talking about companies which alter their products to fit different cultures. I don't see how the two are directly related, do you ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you are asking, but (if I have understood your question properly) you might like to look at the work of Geert Hofstede around culture in multinational corporations. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Marx and morality of wages and profit

In Capital I, p.61, Marx wrote that "[Adolf Wagner] foists me on the idea that "the surplus-value produced by the labourers alone improperly remains with the capitalist entrepeneurs"... In fact, I say the direct opposite: namely that at a certain point commodity production necessarily becomes 'capitalist' commodity production and that according to the law of value governing the latter, the "surplus-value" is necessarily the capitalist's and not the labourer's." (my emphasis)

What? I've only just begun to browse through his material, but this contradicts everything any modern marxist has ever said to me - if I'm reading it right, that is. What I read here (and it is echoed a few other places), if I am to translate it into what I easily understand, is that the entrepeneur, having facilitated for the efficient production of the commodity, properly owns some of the profit. That's the word he uses here, and it's as normative as they come: It is PROPER of the entrepeneur to retain profit. Now, Marx repeatedly says that -part- of the surplus-value is unpaid labour, and that this is immoral. What I want to know is, does he ever get any more specific with regards to how much profit is moral to keep?

In the end, it appears to me that Marx says profit, within reason for the labourer, is entirely alright prior to the social revolution, ie as long as there are capitalists. However, Eduard Bernstein never seems to meet him on this point in The Preconditions for Socialism - as I'm almost sure he would.

Could any of you possibly help shed some light on the issue? I thank you in advance! 129.241.165.147 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on surplus value that talks about this and might help. Marx's problem was that the laborer was providing more than he was being paid for, and that the difference between costs to the employer and benefits to the employer (the difference being the "surplus value") was essentially theft. Since the laborer cannot make money without the employer, they are nominally stuck with any terms the employer gives them. This doesn't hold as much water as Marx might like since the employer is also dependent on the laborer, the employer has to pay something even if the laborer's only option is a take it or leave it. SDY (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Marx isn't a moralist—Marx is a social constructivist when it comes to moral theories: all society exists in the context of its material base. For Marx, within capitalism, capitalism justifies its moral order by being the natural order of culture in capitalism. The point Marx is making here, is that in Feudal societies, extracting profit from workers was viewed as usury or unjust, whereas in capitalism, such as extraction is viewed as moral. The morality is socially contingent. Marx never gets specific about how much surplus value it is moral to keep in capitalism, as Marx's Capital is a revolutionary manual (see Harry Cleaver's Reading Capital Politically for this). Every category Marx presents: wage labour, the length of the working day, surplus value, is contestable—why? Marx thinks that the whole edifice of capital can be dismantled. As Marx shows in the contest over the length of the working day, each of these categories is contingent upon social power. So with enough social power, the surplus value extracted can be reduced. A key example here is social democracy such as the Labour governments in Britain after the war. They had sufficient social power to tax surplus value production and divest it as social goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The error underlying Marx work on surplus value and profit is that value is objective. The labor theory of value is based on the assumption that value is objective because value, in Marx' world, is determined by the amount of labor that goes into production. If this were true, then an apple pie would be as valuable as (and command the same price as) a mud pie assuming the same amount of labor went into the production of each. Objective value also gives rise to the "markets as exploitation" argument since every transaction is a zero-sum game: if you pay $12 for something that has an objective value of $10, you lose and the seller wins. In fact, value is subjective. Suppose you value a car so much that you'd be willing to part with $20,000 to obtain the car, and a seller values the same car so much that he'd not be willing to part with it for less than $10,000. If the two of you agree on a sale price of $16,000, then you both win -- you get a car worth (to you) $20,000 for a price of $16,000, and the seller sells a car worth (to him) $10,000 for a price of $16,000. Wikiant (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you actually read Marx. His labour theory of value has nothing in common with the absurdity you just presented. Marx stipulates that the labour power engaged in producing value is exerted labour power in an abstract social form performed at the socially average productivity rate. It is in Volume 1 and it is clearly presented. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated. I chose to ignore what Wikiant provided -- it seemed entirely irrelevant.

I guess it is the wording that gets to a lot of people; the word "exploit" (same in German) is used so often that I can understand why readers could attribute a moral condemnation to what Marx wrote, when they really should not. I have another question which is tangentially related: As Bernstein wrote in Preconditions, capitalism looks to increase the length of the working day. Expanded infinitely, I reason, this amounts to slavery. However, Bernstein/Marx/others are pretty clear that the Lassallean understanding of the iron law of wages must be discarded -- as (I believe) you say above, there is a cultural factor here. My question then is, did Marx pursue the arguments about the working-day length to the point where they'd amount to slavery? 129.241.222.144 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Marx chose "exploit" for political reasons—there's a link between the "exploitation of natural resources" which is the sense in which Marx describes the exploitation of workers, and the idea of "unfair exploitation". Marx's discussion on the production of value from the labour process is based on a model wherein nobody "cheats" each other, and everything occurs through formal legal consent. Workers are exploited to the extent that they don't control their own production. Given that workers—people reliant on wages for subsistence—are reliant on the employing class regardless of the length of the working day to survive, any length of working day means that they're in the condition of wage slavery. Arguments about the appropriate length of the working day have generally occurred when the amount of rest and leisure was insufficient for the reproduction of labour and the reproduction of labour power by workers: when they're too tired to work. This view sees the shortening of the working day and week as part of increasing total labour exertion, and as a response to "skill" increases required by increasing mechanisation. When you're too tired to operate the widget shifter, it breaks. Debates on the intensity of the worked day are also apt, when people worked 14 hour days, some worked very slack 14 hour days. EP Thompson's [Time Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism] is useful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwindling nationalism?

So one can find many examples of sharp rises in nationalism throughout history (Québec in the 1960s, Scotland a bit later, the Basque country in the 1930s...) but I can't think of a clear example of fervent —separatist— nationalist sentiment shrinking or disappearing in modern history. Can anyone think of a strong separatist sentiment become marginal again after a few years, decades or maybe centuries? --Belchman (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The State of Jefferson almost got going for a while. Then WWII happened and people had other things to think about. It's not a separatist movement in the usual sense, but it is one example. SDY (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how strong these all were, and their current level of interest, but perhaps, Riograndense Republic,Confederate States of America, Free Aceh Movement, Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and Sri Lankan Civil War. Belgium seems to be losing its nationalism, which was of course strong when it fought for its independence in the 1830s, Partition of Belgium. To go back a bit further in time, you may try looking to see in any of the Indian states which formed India had seperatist sentiments at the time, but are now gone, and same could go for Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, which all unified from multiple states. Public awareness (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Republic of Yucatán & Boer Wars, and you may want to check out this list, List of former sovereign states. But when reading the list remember that many of the nations that did split from their mother nation were not always because of popular setiment, but could have been splits due to crown inheritence problems in monarch states or a few individuals trying to pull a Coup d'état on a province of a nation and trying to get independence. Public awareness (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about every nationalist movement you mentioned? Quebec, Scotland, and the Basque country are not separate states today, despite the rising nationalist periods you mentioned; nationalist sentiment has dwindled in each of those places now compared to various times in the past. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think separatism can increase rapidly, but only slowly reduces. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Khalistani separatism dwindled quite rapidly in the 1990s. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Texas Nationalism saw a surge during the year before the most recent election for governor. I haven't heard much about it since then. This particular movement sees peaks and valleys every decade-and-a-half-or-so. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many regions in Europe have at times an active separatist movement: Bavaria in Germany, Andalusia in Spai, Bretagne in France, South Tirol in Italy. They come and go, sometimes after several decades. Quest09 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andalusia has never had anything remotely resembling a separatist movement. They do have a strong regional identity though —but their Spanish identity is equally strong. --Belchman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they were thinking of Basque seperatists. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you meant "separatists"... --Belchman (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like that error is so common that Wikipedia has a redirect for it. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To an American, the southern United States are the obvious example. Lots of southerners still feel a strong sense of regional identity, but not many want to secede from the USA any more. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see Biafra and Katanga. Losing a civil war tends to do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bavaria Party once had a considerable turnout, but then lost most of its voters. But if we are talking about powerful separatist movements you truly should read the article Belgium. Flamarande (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep thinking the NO vote in the Australian republic referendum, 1999 could be seen as a case of dwindling nationalism. The Prime Minister of the day, John Howard, is an avowed monarchist, and he certainly has never had any interest in bringing on a republic. He responded to significant public demand for a change, but was smart enough to offer only one type of republic as an alternative, which he knew few would be prepared to accept. So the majority voted to keep a head of state who lives in another country. Since then, the public mood appears to be quite disinterested in the whole issue. They say its time will come again. They say that will happen whenever Queen Elizabeth dies. Why it should tied to that event, I have never been able to work out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The European Union is a prime example of anti-nationalism. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. On the contrary the institutions of EU work hard to foster (although rather unsuccessfully) a 'European identity', which itself would be a form of nationalism. --Soman (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)