Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 6

Airport as a gateway

In the article of Miami International Airport, it said that 1) "...is American Airlines' primary Latin American gateway, along with a domestic hub for its regional affiliate American Eagle, and Eastern Air Lines; cargo carriers UPS Airlines and FedEx Express; and charter airline Miami Air." and 2) "...is the largest gateway between the United States and Latin America, and is one of the largest airline hubs in the United States, owing to its proximity to tourist attractions, local economic growth, large local Latin American and European populations, and strategic location to handle connecting traffic between North America, Latin America, and Europe." My question is that is Miami International Airport the only one that has that description or nickname and if not, what other international airports in other cities has been consider as a gateway to other parts of the world? Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you see that Seattle–Tacoma International Airport is described as a gateway to Asia, and here you see that San Francisco International Airport is described as the gateway to the Pacific. There's two examples. I'm sure this list is NOT exhaustive, the use of the word "gateway" to describe Airports (as a marketing term) is common in American English. --Jayron 32 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other versions of English, Vancouver International Airport is "North America's gateway to Asia", Singapore Changi Airport is the "Gateway To Asia And Southwest Pacific", and Iqaluit Airport is the "gateway" to ... (drum roll please) ... Nunavut. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Vice President state car

Which car is used for the US Vice President? I couln't really find a satisfying answer on the web.--Hubon (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this somewhat unreliable source it is currently a 2001 Cadillac de Ville. --Jayron 32 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found Government Police Cars Web Site - US Secret Service & Presidential Limousines which shows a 2006 Cadillac DTS Vice President's Limo. Although not stated specifically, it appears from that page that the Vice-President gets the President's cast-offs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, thank you for sharing your find! Now, if that should prove true, this would be quite an interesting, but also somewhat consistent philosophy – the "number two" gets to be transported only with second-hand cars... ;-)--Hubon (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biden has a 1981 Trans Am. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

;-)--Hubon (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political ideology

What's a political ideology like what the Nordic countries have, but with more freedom? Benjamin (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to define "freedom". Does "freedom" mean lower taxes? Smaller government? Weaker government? Fewer regulations? Or, does freedom mean larger government, more intrusive government? Because it works both ways, mate. I can name quite a few large intrusions by governments that have indisputably made their people "freer". --Golbez (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is flawed. The Nordic countries are known for being amongst the most equal and free in the world. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Nordic countries are pretty free, but they still ban stuff, like licorice pipes, and gas cars. Benjamin (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "licorice pipe"? And in which of the Nordic countries are "gas" (I assume you mean petrol) cars banned? DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, in none of them. But Norway has considered not to register new petrol (and Diesel) cars from 2025. Note that that is not substantially different from nearly any other country, including the US. The all have certain conditions under which cars are allowed on the road (emission limits, fleet mpg limits, safety standards) - Norway's would just be somewhat stricter than most in this one respect. But I'm pretty sure that none of the cars seen in e.g. Remington Steele would be legal to register as a new car in nearly any first-world country. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A licorice pipe is a licorice candy shaped like a pipe: https://www.oldestsweetshop.co.uk/liquorice-pipes. In 2013 a group in the European Parliament (a body in the European Union) suggested to ban toys and candy which look like tobacco. The idea was that such things could make children think tobacco is cool. Licorice pipes were not mentioned and the suggestion wasn't specific to the Nordic countries but licorice pipes is an old well-known tobacco-looking candy there and the press jumped on it as an example of EU interfering too much. EU representatives said licorice pipes probably wouldn't even have been covered by a ban because they don't look enough like real tobacco. Nothing was actually banned in the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter and Stephan Schulz. So, neither of the products described by @Benjaminikuta: as being banned in Nordic countries have been banned in Nordic countries, one may become restricted at some point in the future in one Nordic country, and the other wasn't banned in an organisation which does not include all the Nordic countries, but does include many countries that aren't Nordic.

I think you just answered your question - an ideology that would be "more free," by that definition, would be identical but not ban licorice pipes and gas cars. But, if one defines freedom differently, then that would be a flawed answer. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a concrete example of why "more free" is tricky to pin down, look at the South Schleswig Voters' Association - a political party for the Danish minority in Germany which advocates the Nordic model. Compared to the traditional German social market economy, there are some areas where the party wants the state to exercise more control (eg. welfare) and some where it wants the state to exercise less control (eg. labour policy). So, is the German model more free or less free than the Nordic one? You could argue either way - for instance, different people will have very different opinions about whether a country where companies can fire employees easily is "freer" than one where employers are very restricted? Smurrayinchester 11:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Freedom Index rates countries by a range of factors, and currently has Hong Kong as the most free country in the world (though China is 141st) - followed by Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Finland and Netherlands. The USA is in 23rd place. Wymspen (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Freedom Index is published by a group of organisations with a strong free-market, libertarian and partially neo-conservative perspective. It's certainly one approach to quantify human liberty, but not the only one. In particular, it places a strong value on economic freedom, but does not seem to measure things like the right to organise collective bargaining or to form trade unions, or social security nets that provide the practical freedom to leave bad jobs. Freedom of expression seems to be measured only for economic entities (the press), not individuals. And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a tremendous rhetorical success that conservatives have managed to paint freedom as an inverse binary function of the size of government, regardless of private actors. Doesn't matter if that larger government provides functions that help increase your freedom to do things, because, to them, "freedom" is purely a function of "freedom from the state". To them, a smaller government can't possibly result in less freedom, because potential abuse or oppression by private actors is okay, or simply can't happen due to whatever definitions they come up with. Likewise, a larger government can't possibly result in more freedom, because things that help people invariably lower "freedom" for others, and that is never a net gain in their eyes, despite all the situations where it is: civil rights laws, education, health care, food stamps, and the court system, to name just a few things the government does or can do that create a net benefit. And yes, that can include banning certain types of gas for cars, like leaded gasoline. Definitely a net benefit to all of society there, including enhancing their freedom to live without lead poisoning, despite technically, to the conservative mind, being an infringement on "freedom". (and I say this as a former hardcore libertarian/anarchocapitalist) --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're about 2 weeks away from seeing it come to fruition in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It" being what? Not trying to be snarky: I have a genuine interest in political developments and opinions in the USA (which is not in my continent), and the preceeding posts are too extensive for me to figure out the specific "it" you're referencing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [Re-signed with previously omitted tildes, so posting time inaccurate – TPFNA87 etc.][reply]

"It" being the inauguration and the total takeover of a new government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how that is relevant to the OP and the subsequent posts, unless you are assuming (but not thus far stating explicitly) that this new government will make the USA "more free" (than the Nordic countries?) than it was before. If so, your definition of "free" differs radically from mine, but neither of our personal opinions is relevant to the OP. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This branch was initially relevant, as Wymspen was trying to link to published opinions on which countries are "more free" than Scandinavia, followed by increasingly off-course discussion of the opinion-holders' definition of freedom. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP often asks questions that cannot be defined precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a feature of the world that questions are not always obviously clear, nor always have answers that are clear, simple, and correct. In many such cases, they can be clarified and hidden assumptions can be made obvious, leading to a useful quantum of enlightenment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't seen the OP's "cultural upheaval" questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a varied selection of indices, see List of freedom indices. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shieldmaiden = Virgin?

Lagertha Is probably best known shieldmaiden. She is a mother of two children as well. Therefore I can't understand why people think that shieldmaidens are virgins - are they? ברעזרא (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lagertha story you cited, her marriage and children came after her warrior days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs as I know, like other women she were a shieldmaiden also after she became a mother. For example on the TV show Vikings, her brother in law says she was a famous shieldmaiden, but she and her husband say that she still is. The mother of two is not likely a virgin. ברעזרא (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for a mother of one, in my theological opinion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what script writers come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article shieldmaiden doesn't mention that they were virgins, but Wiktionary.org defines a "shieldmaiden" as "a virgin who had chosen to fight as a warrior in battle." Given that "maiden" itself can refer to either a young unmarried girl or woman, or a virgin (again according to wiktionary.org), it's quite possible that "shieldmaiden" is used sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Loraof (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]