Humanities desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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

Araminta Ross

Why were Harriet Tubman and her parents surnamed Ross? Did this come from a previous slaveholding family who owned the family before the Pattison's or Brodess'?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to second question: An archivist at the Maryland State Archives says: "Benjamin Ross was born the property of Anthony Thompson of Dorchester county around 1787. In 1803, Anthony Thompson married Mary Pattison, of the same county, becoming Pattison's second husband. At this time, Ben met Harriet "Rit" Green, one of Pattison's slaves." Apparently no other person named Ross except Benjamin himself. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an answer. I've looked around for Ben's father, but came up empty. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feist v. Rural concurring opinion

Can someone find me an online copy of Justice Blackmun's concurring opinion in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.? Our article links to the FindLaw edition of the majority opinion, but following the official decision of reversal of the appeals court, the only text is "JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurs in the judgment." and an unrelated footnote. The same is true of Justia and everything else I've checked. I've never checked print editions of the United States Reports, so I don't know if they would help. If they would, any idea where I could find systematic digital editions of them? The Supreme Court's website includes a digitized volumes page, but the earliest is vol. 502, and Feist v. Rural is vol. 499. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life After Feist by Philip H. Miller says "Although Feist was a unanimous decision, Justice Blackmun concurred only in the judgment. He did not file a separate opinion." So apparently this is it. -- BenRG (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal situation, when non-financial essential companies fail

What does the law say about how the government must deal when companies like Enron fail? It would be a case of non-financial too big to fail. Has the gov ear-marked resources to keep running essential infrastructure like power plants or pipelines which were at the hands of a bankrupt company?--YX-1000A (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the United States government, the answer is Bankruptcy Law. It's almost always the case when a company crashes that SOME part of it is worth SOME money. And usually business are worth more money if you're able to keep them running while the court sorts out the mess, so the court allows the bankrupt business to limp along, while keeping a close eye on its expenses. Now in the specific case of power plants or pipelines, each state in the USA has a Public utilities commission that is tasked with keeping the power on. In fact, most public utilities commissions would consider themselves to have failed if they even let it get that far: the usual arrangement is that power companies agree to extremely rigorous auditing, and in exchange, the state government lets them have little monopolies over certain areas. This relationship tends to work out well for both the state citizens and the company's owners, which is why Enron was such a shock -- that kind of scamming wasn't just against the personal ethics of the energy industry, it was also a really reckless way to run a business. --M @r ē ino 14:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One risk is that a utility company will intentionally take high profits by neglecting maintenance on their infrastructure, then declare bankruptcy when it all collapses, leaving it to the taxpayers to sort out. Then the owners might even form a new company so they can repeat the cycle again and again.StuRat (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any actual source that this is happening? It contrasts heavily with the answer above yours. --Yppieyei (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That pattern is more common in sports stadiums, which are often at least partially taxpayer funded, and frequently are replaced every few decades, at great taxpayer expense, rather than being maintained (at the owner's expense). There the threat of moving the sports team to another city is often used. The Silverdome is one example.

A similar example is where General Motors bought up streetcar systems in many cities, including Detroit, and destroyed them, either outright or via neglect, in order to increase car and bus sales. (The similarity is in a private company profiting by damaging the public infrastructure.) StuRat (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have any source of this "corporate evil forces" theory, or just imagined that could be true? --Yppieyei (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oye Vey. There's enough written on this, both in theory & practice, to kill a brontosaurus. Principal–agent problem is a place to start on theory. Plenty of books on how stadiums are usually scams etc. Stu's answer doesn't contradict Mareino's, but complements it.John Z (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some scenarios lend themselves to inefficiencies and corruption. Still, Mareino talks about "each state in the USA has a Public utilities commission that is tasked with keeping the power on", "relationship tends to work out well for both the state citizens and the company's owners, which is why Enron was such a shock." StuRat seems to imply that corporations are able of big schemes like GM's buying Detroit's streetcar system to be able to destroy it and sell more cars. That's a corporate conspiracy theory. --Yppieyei (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's a risk, not that it happens in every case. For example, it would require buying off members of the public services commission, which may be illegal, and therefore could subject them to prison time. People are often unwilling to risk prison, even for substantial financial gain.

Also, you refer to "corporate evil forces", but, under capitalism, it's the duty of every corporation to maximize shareholder value, not to protect the public interest. If they put the public interest above maximizing shareholder value, they could be sued. An interesting case is where maximizing shareholder value requires breaking the law. Some companies, but not all, are willing to go this far. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's claim about General Motors is not just a conspiracy theory. It is actually well documented. See National City Lines. Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more enlightening. The more specific article is the General Motors streetcar conspiracy.--Yppieyei (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to keep in mind that the implicit assumption, that streetcars are somehow "better" than individually owned cars, is not necessarily valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the population density. In densely populated cities, public transportation can work far better than individual cars, which just cause gridlock. Of course, a poorly maintained public transportation system, where only the poor people ride, with a lack of funds to provide security, is doomed to be miserable. But Canada, Japan, and many European cities do a first rate job of providing public transportation in cities. Rural areas, on the other hand, are a better place for private cars.

Also, if public transportation really was such a bad deal, at the time, then the public would have argued that, and government themselves would have dismantled it (as happened in some cases, such as ferries replaced by bridges). There would be no need for a private company to come in, and, under the guise of running the public transportation system, destroy it. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corbyn and poetry

I was just watching a BBC programme about Denis Healey in which he mentioned how important his four Willies (William Shakespeare, William Blake, William Wordsworth, and William Butler Yeats) were to him. It reminded me of something I had been wondering about - has Jeremy Corbyn ever talked publicly about poetry? DuncanHill (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. ‑ iridescent 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's just got a "said to be". DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]