Humanities desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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

August 8[edit]

Francis Pearson, barrister's clerk[edit]

I have just read a very enjoyable book Pearson, Francis (1935). Memories of a K.C.'s Clerk. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., Ltd., and would be interested to know some more biographical details of the author. From his comments within the book he appears to be Roman Catholic, partly Irish (though his father's family are from Bury St Edmunds), served in the 9th Londons in the Kaiser's War achieving the rank of Captain. He seems to have spent some of this time on some sort of special duties, perhaps intelligence. He was a Liberal election agent in Hampshire at one time. He had some sort of connexion with Irish nationalism too, and knew Reginald Dunne and Joseph O'Sullivan, the killers of Sir Henry Wilson. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web searches will unfortunately be complicated by his younger namesake Francis Pearson, also a soldier and active in politics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan's cessation of semiconductor export to PRC[edit]

In case of further deterioration of cross-Strait relations and military escalation can Taiwan stop exporting TSMC semiconductors and other vital electronics to PRC, and potentially strangle it economically? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Taiwan is indeed a vital supplier to PRC with no alternative, a much simpler plan for Taiwan to get roughly the same outcome would be to launch a few missiles at Beijing. In general mutual interdependence on trade helps secure peace unless there's a severe embargo or threat thereof. Also China's interest in an open Taiwan Strait motivates its restraint as well. If the trade incentive is cut and an economic war threatened, China's only deterrent may be the U.S. military, and such unlikely odds haven't stopped many other nations from risking almost certain war against top Western powers, either hoping that they won't retaliate or that they just might make it (Pearl Harbor, Gulf War, Falklands, etc.). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be fooled. Neither the PRC nor the ROC has any interest on stopping the exporting of semiconductors. The spice must flow. What politicians say or do to meet their political needs is one thing, but the leadership of neither country is interested in destroying their own economy over the issue. No one is flushing that much cash down the toilet because of "principles". Mainland China accounts for over 1/4 of Taiwan's economy, and the electronics manufacturing sector accounts for 7% of China's national GDP, again neither country is stupid enough to jeopardize that. --Jayron 32 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above, we have the most logical, carefully thought-out reasoning possible. It is this kind of “they wouldn’t dare cut off their noses to spite there faces” thinking that led to World War I. Try this: What is the domestic political cost of attacking Taiwan, and losing? What is the domestic political benefit of periodically escalating tensions, in response to external events? DOR (HK) (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tensions may be escalated without intending to launch an all-out military assault. It's part of the political dance. The spice must flow. Taiwan may want to respond in someway, but without anyone to buy the stuff that is making up 1/4 of their economy, they ain't doing shit. No one else has the capacity to buy the semiconductors that China does, and there is no where else for China to get their semiconductors. Politicians only do what the businessmen that keep them in office allow them to do. --Jayron 32 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the WWI angle is not apt. The global economy we live under now had no analogue 100 years ago. Saying that "this is the thinking that led to WWI" doesn't make any sense because we don't operate on a 1910s economy, we operate in a 2020s economy, and the scope of international trade coupled with the depth of specialization is something that didn't happen in 1910s. The 1910s were still largely a mercantilist, extraction-based, colonial world economy. We don't live in that world anymore. --Jayron 32 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be pointed out that TSMC have a major subsidiary facility in Shanghai, which would doubtless have to continue operations and supply the PRC regardless of what decisions were taken in Hsinchu. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new law for "reducing inflation"[edit]

Re: Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The U.S. Senate passed this new law, over the weekend ... this new law for "reducing inflation". Let's assume the House passes it ... and then Biden also passes it. It is now the law. Can that law (realistically and practically) be "voided" if the Republicans take the House in November? Same question ... if the Republicans take both the House and the Senate in November? In other words ... what would be the scenarios if the Republicans wanted to get rid of that new law? What options are (realistically and practically) available to them ... if they win one chamber? If they win both chambers? Thank you. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Republicans tried, Biden would probably veto it… so the Repubs would need to have enough of majority to overturn Biden’s veto. That is unlikely. However, IF that were the case, then yes, they could write a new law that effectively cancelled the current one. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) There will still be a Democratic president at least through January 2025, who would presumably be unlikely to sign a bill undoing his own legislative goals. Therefore, in order to undo the new law, the Republicans would need to either win big enough to override a veto, or take control of the presidency in 2024, while keeping or maintaining control of both houses of Congress. And of course there's still the filibuster to contend with. Taking either the House or the Senate would allow Republicans to prevent much further legislative work by the Democrats, but it wouldn't really enable them to pass their own legislation. The US doesn't really have the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Instead, it has separation of powers, which usually makes it much easier to block things than to do (or undo) things. A Republican Congress does, of course, still have other options than directly legislating: for example, refusing to raise the United States debt ceiling. --Amble (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Veto power in the United States. Specifically, for the 118th United States Congress to repeal the legislation, assuming Biden would veto any such attempt, that would require a 2/3rds majority of both houses (the next whole number strictly greater than 2/3 of the members of that house. For the Senate that requires 67 votes, and in the HoR, that requires 291). That seems unlikely to happen in the next election; current predictions at 538.com indicate that the Republicans are only likely to take control of the HoR, though there is about an equal chance that the Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress. There's basically next to no chance that the GOP takes enough seats to control a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. --Jayron 32 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what Jayron, Amble, and Blueboar have said. Repealing a law is indeed a thing, but tough to pull off. Case in point John McCain's famous vote not to repeal Obamacare. Andre🚐 19:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fountains?[edit]

Hosepipe bans are being introduced across the UK. There are some exceptional circumstances when a hosepipe can be used, one of which is "filling a fountain used for religious practices". Obviously I'm not going to attempt to circumvent the ban, but I am intrigued. My Google fu has failed me. Just what are these religious practices that require such a thirsty fountain? Shantavira|^{feed me} 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cantharus (Christianity), Sebil (fountain), Shadirvan. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikveh Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baptismal font --Jayron 32 19:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baptismal font was my first thought, but it's not a fountain, in that it does not "discharge water" or "jet water into the air". However the words font and fountain do apparently come from the same Latin origin. Possibly fountain has a slightly different meaning in the UK these days. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention must be the Islamic fountains (linked above) for wudu, the ritual washing of face and arms before prayer, although the few mosques that I have been in had taps that you can turn off, rather than a continuous fountain. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]