From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< December 7	<< Nov | December | Jan >>	December 9 >

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.

Contents 1 December 8 1.1 Renaissance euphemisms for the phallus 1.2 How do you taxi a B-17 backwards? 1.3 Cody Matherson 1.4 Rodeo 1.5 International Trade 1.6 Song info 1.7 History 1.8 Dominatrix - how to? 1.9 US residency after 5 years 1.10 iron man

[edit] December 8

[edit] Renaissance euphemisms for the phallus

A strange request: can anyone provide me with some 16th or 17th Century euphemisms for the penis, or an erection? Thanks Adambrowne666 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pizzle. -THB 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was hoping for something even more euphemistic - more the renaissance version of 'manhood' Adambrowne666 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

William or Willie. Pecker. Really, I don't think you'll find too much innovation here. I'm sure a Shakespeare expert will be along shortly to help. -THB 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In the (in)famous Fanny Hill, it's frequently referred to as a "machine". That was written in 1748, which is a bit late for your needs and I would guess by its very name, may be anachronistic for the earlier period. --Dweller 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of about thirty in the introduction to Eric Partridge's "Shakespeare's Bawdy". I've got a copy at home and if I remember (...don't hold your breath...) I'll post it here. AndyJones 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also this book: A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and Their Significance (Paperback) by Frankie Rubinstein . -THB 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also A Glossary of Shakespeare's Sexual Language by Gordon Williams. I own all three books we've mentioned and I think Williams' is the best, and certainly the most up-to date. I've occasionally thought Wikipedia could have a decent article on the general subject of Shakespeare's Bawdy. Anyway, here's that list of - actually 46 - terms used by Shakespeare for the penis, some directly and others punningly, according to Eric Partridge: bugle, dart of love, lance, pike, pistol, poll-axe, potent regiment, standard, sword, weapon, hook, horn, carrot, holy-thistle, pizzle, poperin pear, potato-finger, prick, root, stake, stalk, tail, thorn, bauble, cock, cod-piece, distaff, instrument, needle, organ, pen, pin, pipe, stump, three-inch fool, tool, yard, lag end, little finger, loins, nose, Pillicock, R, Roger, tale, and thing. AndyJones 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic - thanks so much - you've certainly raised the standard! Adambrowne666 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you taxi a B-17 backwards?

I have a bet with my dad, please help me win!!

Dad told me a story about a bunch of WWII pilots in a bar, drinking, when one of them bet the rest that he could taxi a b-17 backwards. He went out and proved it. How did he do it? The planes can't turn their props the other way, and Google has left me high and dry.

Thanks! Maureen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.179.46 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Most if not all fixed-wing propellor aircraft are designed in such a way so as to allow the pitch of the propellors to change in order to adjust to their varying requirements during flight. Sort of like a car's transmission. High pitch to take off, and low pitch while cruising. I don't know of the particular specs of B-17, but I do know that certain planes are/were designed in such a way so as to allow the pilot to basically reverse the angle of the pitch to such a degree that they would actually produce reverse thrust. I'm not talking about reversing the rotation of the blades, they're still rotating in the same direction. What I don't get is why the other pilots couldn't figure it out. Maybe they weren't B-17 pilots. And then again, maybe I'm wrong and the B-17 isn't designed the way I assumed it is. What I do know for certain though is that at least some propellor planes are designed to be able to taxi in reverse. Loomis 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the trick is that most B-17's did not have propellers capable of reverse pitch, but this particular one did. According to this article (PDF), Hamilton Standard propellers with reverse pitch were developed (to supplement the brakes on landing, like reverse thrust on modern jets) around the end of WW2 and first went into production in 1946. I don't know about other brands of propellers. But there must have been some early experimental installations, and if you were a pilot flying one of them, wouldn't you want to pull a trick like that? --Anonymous, 03:30 UTC, December 8. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The B-17's a taildragger. As I recall, the rear wheel is connected to the flight controls, so the full thrust of the engines would be trying to swing that wheel around. Have fun trying to keep ahold of the controls. --Carnildo 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be particularly interested and would appreciate it if the original questioner would come back to us and tell us if we we're right. Loomis 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll admit I'm pig-ignorant about this, but -- what would happen if you got some speed on the taxiway and then stopped one side and powered the other? Could you do something like a bootleg turn but end up keeping your momentum in the same direction? (Hopefully without messing up your wingtips?) (I'm sure experienced pilots are now laughing themselves silly.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing is a ground loop... it accidentally happens to pilots in tail-draggers occasionally. Unfortunately, they can be very dangerous, as the plan spins around, it often tips, as the outer wing will generate some lift, and so lift up that wingtip, forcing the inside wingtip down where it may contact the tarmac. 192.168.1.1 12:20pm, 9 December 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.143.116 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not a pilot, but I don't think the plane can taxi fast enough to do a bootleg turn | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's experimental props or bootleg turns. ;) I reckon it's something stupid, like the pilot saddling the cockpit seat backwards and holding the controls behind his back, technically taxiing the plane backwards.... Vespine 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good one! :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Matherson

On the commentary for the eighth season of the Simpsons, in the episode A Milhouse Divided, it is mentioned that the idea for Kirk van Houten's song/album "Can I Borrow a Feeling?" was based on a compilation of "worst album covers" featuring the album "Can I Borrow a Feelin'?" by Cody Matherson [1]. So my question is, is the Cody Matherson album genuine or a hoax? The album cover itself looks rather photoshopped, and I can not find any information about Cody Matherson via Google... so, is it real? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.70.141 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodeo

Could anyone tell me what the storyline of Aaron Copland's ballet Rodeo is? Thanks in advance. --Philosofinch 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You might find some clues in Aaron Copland and Rodeo. Clio the Muse 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles were not very helpful. Also, you spelled Copland wrong. --Philosofinch 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Clio the Muse 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an explanation. meltBanana 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That link requires a Google account. StuRat 10:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well get a google account. They are free as far as I remember and massively useful as they allow access to Google book search, which I would heretically suggest is the best thing on the internet. In the intervening…

For this new ballet, de Mille expanded a movement, "Rodeo," from her her ballet American Street (1938), which had used gestures and movements derived from horseback riding (a dance created without knowledge of Eugene Loring's comparable choreography for Billy the Kid, which she came to admire). She cast her scenario (later revised) in two scenes, the action taking place on a Saturday afternoon and evening on a ranch in the Southwest (eventually specified as Texas) around 1900. Scene one opens with folks strolling around a corral during the intermission of a local rodeo. The Cowgirl dresses and acts like a man in an attempt to stay close to the Head Wrangler, with whom she is infatuated. Other girls, including the frilly Ranchowner's Daughter, enter and flirt with the cowboys. The rodeo resumes, the cowboys displaying their skills. In the hopes of getting the attention of the Head Wrangler (who is smitten with the Ranchowner's Daughter), the Cowgirl attempts to ride a bronco but just gets in the way. Finally, the exasperated cowboys order her away and complete their show.

As twilight approaches, sweethearts move in and out of the encroaching darkness as the Cowgirl, alone and lonely, finds herself moved by the spaciousness of the sky and the land. Out of the darkness, a small group of dancers perform a square dance, not to music but rather to the sounds of clapping hands, beating feet, and the cries of a caller.

Scene two takes place at night outside the ranch house. While some dance inside, others flirt, smoke, and drink stage front. An elderly Mexican man yearns for home. The Head Wrangler, accompanied by a fiddler, brings the dancing outside. A waltz follows. Unable to find a partner, the Cowgirl tearfully leaves with the Mexican, who tries to console her. In the midst of the waltz the men are suddenly called away to return a stray cow to the corral, leaving the women alone. The men, mopping their brows, return to finish the waltz. At the start of a vigorous hoedown, a young Buck seeks a woman equal to his passion (the hoedown, according to de Mille's scenario, being a competitive dance of sexual aggression and submission analogous to flamenco). Soon after the hoedown begins, the Cowgirl appears, wearing a dress and a bow in her hair. Everyone gapes. Only the Cowgirl can stand up to the Buck, who kisses her. "He grabs her, forces her to dance his way and wears her out by sheer brute strength. That's all she's wanted. She has met her master." The ballet ends as all join hands for a grand promenade. meltBanana 15:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Trade

I've had some problems lately on how trade is conducted internationally. What I don't understand is how countries are benefitting from trade. Isn't it the private companies that trade resources to either other companies or the people of another country? I understand that with the growth of companies, a country is going to prosper along with the market, but is that the only affect? Are imports and exports being bought by "nations" rather than "companies"? Any enlightenment will help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rentastrawberry (talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

See trade and international trade. If you are really interested, The Wealth of Nations makes good reading on this subject. Trade between nations that are to some degree capitalistic is indeed primarily between companies, but remember that companies are ultimately owned by individuals or groups of individuals. Every transaction of imported and exported goods and services adds up and is figured into the GDP which is a measure of all the goods and services that a country has gained. Like companies, countries are groups of people. You could also look at trade between U.S. states, between a U.S. state and another country, or between groups of countries, like the EU or Mercosur. It's basically looking at the same thing at different levels.

The basic idea of exchange is that both parties are better off in material goods or wealth than they would have been had the exchange not occurred. This is true at an individual, company, or national level.

The rise of multi-national corporations have blurred these lines somewhat and made it more difficult to assess the situation. In addition, not all trade is made by companies, as governments also purchase goods. -THB 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the most useful way to think of this is in terms of employment, income and balance of payments. International trade benefits 'countries' rather than 'companies' as increased demand for goods and services from abroad would mean more people at home are employed and/or are getting paid more. Alternatively, companies competing with cheap imports may lose out and have to sack workers or reduce their wages, meaning that there is less employment and income in the relevant sectors at home. Taking this approach solves the problem with multi-national corporation since trade within the multinationals (Apple buying parts for iPod from China and Thailand for assembly elsewhere, etc.) can also count as international trade and their effects on 'countries' evaluated. The balance of payments refers to the payments that flow in and out of countries and trade is part of this. The volume and speed that payments flow in and out of countries directly affect the exchange rate and, hence, affects stability and growth of the national economy in general. Lastly, don't forget that despite all the talk about globalization, the international trade system is still based on the states being the main negotiators. If American farmers can't export hormone-fed beef to Europe, they don't go to talk directly with European supermarkets but lobby the American government to bring the case against the EU to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. --Ithi s 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song info

Does anyone recognize the song on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YrYvj3HZ1I&mode=related&search= (starts ca. 02:53 and goes further)? A bit hard to search by scattered words. Thanks. --Brand спойт 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any working sound on this computer. Could you give some recurring phrases and a small description, too? =S 惑乱 分からん 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a mix of punk rock and alternative featuring only female voice. The only words I've understood are "I" and "we" recurring in the chorus. --Brand спойт 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightwish - Sacrament of Wildness good voice, crap lyrics. Nightwish; probably would sound better if sung in finnish. meltBanana 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) BTW they sound nothing like -->>> Melt Banana so give them a listen. (or else) meltBanana 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I would like to know the names of some countries that the united states went to war with over natural resources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.181.30 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The United States, to my knowledge, has never claimed access to natural resources as a justification for wars it has entered. However, many have argued that both of the United States' wars with Iraq have involved securing access to oil in the Middle East. Marco polo 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the only reason Iraq became enough of a threat to justify war was because it had oil, but that doesn't mean the US is there to "steal it's oil". That would be quite impossible. It would take decades to extract all of Iraq's oil, even with all of the infrastructure working, and the value would never exceed the cost of the wars. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It might, if the world is running out of oil and the price rises as a result. Also, the leaders who decided to start the current war drastically underestimated its cost and may have thought it would be a smart investment. Marco polo 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they did underestimate it, amongst themselves, they just lied about the cost to get approval for the war, which never would have happened had they said it would cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. (That's getting to be serious money, even for the US.) "A few billion dollars here and a few billion there, and sooner or later it adds up to be real money". StuRat 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider land a natural resource, then the War of 1812 (with England), Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War could all be said to be, at least in part, about gaining or holding land. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that the Spanish-American War would count but the Revolutionary War would have to count. Rmhermen 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Desert Storm was initiated over the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Iraq claimed to invade Kuwait over slant-drilling of oil (a natural resource). The U.S. entered the war to protect Kuwait (and whatever oil-drilling practices they were doing). Looking at a map, it is apparent that if Iraq held Kuwait it would also gain the natural resourse of a sea-connected port - which the U.S. denied by entering the war. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq already had a sea-connected port at Umm Qasr. Rmhermen 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason Japan entered WWII was to secure access to oil and other resouces. Clarityfiend 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Wars are probably the most obvious example. For "countries involved" you could list the various Native American groups or nations. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, (though I'm a bit surprised that he's taking that particualar position). People so often speak of the war as being "all about oil". There's a lot of truth to that phrase, but it's all too often taken out of context. The fact that Saddam had oil enabled him to prop up his regime, to dole out cash to the families of terrorists, to afford costly wars of aggression, to develop chemical weapons to be used in those wars, and even to build a nuclear power plant at Osiraq. Yes it was indeed, in a sense at least, "all about oil". Yet it had nothing to do with the US "stealing" oil from Iraq to serve American greed. Loomis 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put Loomis. But I don't see how the Revolutionary War was fought for recources, unless you mean the taxes they didn't want to pay? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he means it was a war to control the land of the 13 colonies, as well as the land to the west. StuRat 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what they've been saying for the last 230 years... Maybe it's a coverup. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominatrix - how to?

Odd question - but I'm relatively new to the world of being dominant and I'm just wondering if anyone can provide any insight on ways to determine what would be good things to use for humiliation with someone? Aside from basic stuff (someone is overweight, etc)... how do you figure out what someone's "buttons" are? Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing domination with humiliation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Humiliation IS a form of domination :) Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Read a few of these listings, and you'll get a bit of an idea. Also have you checked some of the external links on the BDSM page? I have a friend who does it professionally, and I'd be happy to give you some tips, but IMO it'd be a bit too prurient for the main board, so if after you've done some reading you still need info, post to my talk page and I'll tell you privately. Anchoress 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I had expected Anchoress to know the answer to this question. :-) StuRat 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To be an effective dominitrix, one must be both assertive and subtle. Knowing what works as humilation is entirely dependant on the circumstances. Some like it hot, some like it sharp. Mathiemood 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US residency after 5 years

is it true that there is going to be a law that says that every illegal who has been in the US for 5 years or more when the law is passed (next year I believe) will get the residency?.--Cosmic girl 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to predict the future. There may be such a law under consideration, but until it survives any media attention and passes, we don't know whether it will. Marco polo 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You could look through United States immigration debate and its links. I don't see any mention of a five year plan but do see that Bush specifically opposed a general amnesty as opposed to a "immigration pathway". It would not be unprecedented: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized 2.7 million immigrants who had been in the country four years. Rmhermen 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iron man

i was just reading the iron man article and it says that the song Gets me through, has lyrics resembling iron man. no, actually it doesn't. the lyrics are," im not the antichrist or the eye of man." not iron man.Jk31213 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics website all seem to diasgree with you including I Right - Misheard Lyrics which mentions this mishearing. Rmhermen 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)