The Dilemma: You really like that show on HBO—but which empire is it about?

People You Can Impress: German guys with Roman numerals after their names

The Quick Trick: The Roman Empire was Roman, then moved to Constantinople. The Holy Roman Empire was mostly Germanic, and ruled Central Europe between Charlemagne and Napoléon.

The Explanation:
The Roman Empire (31 bce–476 ce in the West, and to 1453 in the East) is pretty self-explanatory: It was the empire whose capital was Rome. At its height it stretched from Scotland to the Persian Gulf and all the way around the Mediterranean. But it was always centered on Rome, right? Not so fast.

In 330 ce, the Emperor Constantine, the first emperor to convert to Christianity, moved the capital east to Byzantium and changed its name to Constantinople (a.k.a. Istanbul). Why Constantinople? Because if you’re going to found a capital city, you might as well show some good old-fashioned Christian humility and name it after yourself. In the fourth century, the empire officially split in two, with Rome being one capital and Constantinople the other. Then, when Rome was sacked in 476 ce, the western half ceased to be. So Rome was no longer part of the Roman Empire. As for the Holy Roman Empire, you may remember the Mike Myers “Coffee Talk” bit (cribbed from Voltaire) on Saturday Night Live: “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss.” Well, that’s mostly true.

On Christmas Day, 800 ce, the pope revived the Roman title of emperor and bestowed it on Charlemagne. That’s where the “Roman” comes from. But the empire (like Charlemagne) was really Germanic. In fact, it was considered the first German Reich (the second stretched from the unification under Bismarck through World War I. And let’s not get into the third one). Charlemagne’s successors would eventually rule most of Central Europe, including modern-day Germany, Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic, the Low Countries, parts of France and Italy, and more.

Until its official dissolution in 1806, the Holy Roman Empire was never a single unified state, but more a hodgepodge of hundreds of kingdoms and principalities unified under the Holy Roman emperor, who sometimes inheredited the job and sometimes was elected to it.

Two dynasties stand out as rulers of the empire. The Hohenstaufens led the empire during the Crusades. In fact, it was because of the Crusades that Frederick II dubbed his empire “Holy.” In the 13th century, however, the Hohenstaufens were replaced by the Hapsburgs, who were all over the thrones of Europe for the next 800 years or so. In the process, they won the award for Most Thoroughly Inbred Royal Family Ever.

The Dilemma: You’ve seen so many documentaries about these guys, but you still can’t tell them apart. They’re just so identically evil.

People You Can Impress: World War II buffs and fourth-grade history teachers

The Quick Trick: Everybody recognizes Hitler. The one with the Hitler mustache that isn’t Hitler is Himmler (he also had glasses). The one with slicked-back hair and mustard-colored jacket is Goebbels. And the fatty in the dove-gray uniform? That’s Göring.

The Explanation:
We don’t need to tell you anything more about Hitler, der Führer (leader) of the Third Reich. After all, he’s one of history’s scariest figures, and the facts about him have probably been drummed into you since grade school. What you might not know, however, is that a lot of the evil he oversaw was actually committed by his closest henchmen, equally sinister in their own right.

Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945) was one of Hitler’s earliest supporters, so in 1929 Hitler chose him to head the SS, the military arm of the Nazi party. What began as a small off shoot of the SA (the party’s stormtroopers) became under Himmler a massive organization of the party’s ideological elite, with its own military units (the Waff en-SS) fighting alongside the regular German army (the Wehrmacht). The SS were the perpetrators of the worst Nazi crimes, including the death camps, the mass execution of civilians, and the Gestapo secret police. Amazingly, when the war started to go south, Himmler actually tried to secretly negotiate peace with the British and Americans. Captured by the Brits, he poisoned himself before he could stand trial at Nuremberg.

Joseph Goebbels (pronounced GHERR-buls, 1897–1945) was the Third Reich’s propaganda minister. A fiery orator like his boss, Goebbels championed the technique of repeating a Big Lie again and again until people believed it. Known to his enemies as “The Malicious Dwarf,” Goebbels spent his last days in Hitler’s bunker under Berlin. After Hitler’s death, however, Goebbels moved up in rank. He was chancellor of Germany for one whole day. Of course, his happiness was short-lived. While still in Hitler’s bunker, his wife, Magda, a Nazi zealot, poisoned six of their children rather than have them live in a world without National Socialism (their oldest child, curiously, survived because he was off fighting). Goebbels proceeded to shoot Magda before turning the gun on himself.

Hermann Göring (1893–1946) led the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe. A decorated World War I hero, he oversaw the air arm of the conquest of Europe until famously squandering his fleet in the Battle of Britain. A drug addict and alcoholic who worried obsessively about his looks, Göring’s vanity couldn’t keep him from overeating: He seemed to gain 10 pounds every time the Nazis lost a battle. Like Himmler, he was expelled from the Nazi Party by Hitler for suspected treason. And he was sentenced to death by hanging at Nuremberg, but managed to poison himself shortly before the execution.

The Dilemma: A wise man once said . . . wait, which wise man was it?

People You Can Impress: philosophy professors and Miss Manners

The Quick Trick: Confucianism is a system of ethics, and Tao is a path of behavior. Also, Confucius was probably an actual person; Lao-tzu probably wasn’t.

The Explanation:
Taoism and Confucianism are two of China’s oldest and most pervasive philosophies. They arose during roughly the same period in Chinese history, called the Hundred Schools of Thought, a time often marred by unrest and feudal strife. Both philosophies reflect this, as their overarching goals are to seek order and harmony in one’s life, relationship with society, and the universe (oh, is that all?).

Taoism is based on one of several philosophical constructs of right and wrong, light and dark, knowledge and truth called the tao (pronounced DOW, meaning “The Way”). Capital-T Taoism is based on the Tao Te Ching (“The Doctrine of the Way and its Virtue,” or something that translates roughly like that) attributed to Lao-tzu, who, if he existed, lived sometime between the seventh and fourth centuries bce. Akin to Buddhism, Taoism seeks to describe the harmonious way to relate to oneself, others, nature, and the universe. One of the head-twisty things about the Tao Te Ching is that it never specifically defines The Way. It’s a series of verses, poems, and riddles. It emphasizes control but not dominance, fluidity but not ambivalence, and mystery but not confusion. It’s full of helpful nuggets, like “Those with simple needs will find them fulfilled,” and “To glorify wealth, power, and beauty is to inspire theft, jealousy, and shame.” In its course, it’s also inspired some modern, pop culture–based philosophical treatises like The Tao of Homer (as in Simpson) and The Te [Virtue] of Piglet.

Confucianism is a philosophy from the same period and can be considered the other side of the Taoist coin. Confucius is the Latinized name of its founder, whose real name was the much more martial arts–sounding K’ung-Fu-tzu. His teachings and lectures are compiled in The Analects. Similar to Proverbs in the Old Testament or parables in the New, the analects depend heavily on analogy and metaphor. They stress the importance not of rules per se, but of ethics, that guide behavior. Our Golden Rule, the whole “do unto others” thing, comes first from Confucius (even though he wouldn’t have called it a “rule”). He also stressed the need for ritual and music. During the Han dynasty (206 bce –220 ce), his teachings became the official political system of China. But its emphasis on ethics instead of laws often led to corruption. And though the Communists squashed it, it’s making a comeback as a code of conduct in modern China.

The Dilemma: You’re in a pub somewhere in the Emerald Isle. A friendly local buys you a pint. Should you toast the queen or the pope?

People You Can Impress: Catholics and Protestants (probably not at the same time)

The Quick Trick: Northern Ireland is part of the UK and largely Protestant. The rest is the Republic of Ireland and mostly Catholic.

The Explanation:
Ireland isn’t all jigs and shamrocks and brilliant literature. The island has a long, sad history of religious and political conflict, of British dominion and the Irish quest for home rule. In fact, since the 1960s, the situation has been simply dubbed “the Troubles.”

Basically, Ireland’s nine northernmost counties constitute the province of Ulster. Six of these—Tyrone, Antrim, Armagh, Londonderry, Down, and Fermanagh—make up Northern Ireland (capital: Belfast), which is subject to the British Crown. But there’s a problem. About a quarter of the people in Northern Ireland, mostly Catholics, see the British as an occupying power. They’re called Nationalists or Republicans, and they want a united, independent Ireland free of British rule. The rest, mostly Protestants, prefer the status quo. They are called Unionists or Loyalists.

The rest of the island is an independent country, known as the Republic of Ireland, with its capital at Dublin. This situation has existed since 1922, when the Irish Free State was formed. The Republic’s tricolor flag represents its turbulent history: green for the native Catholic population; orange for the Protestants, supporters of William of Orange; and white for peace between the two. Sadly, the colors have coexisted better on the flag than on the island.

The Troubles are reenacted in a small way in Glasgow, Scotland, whenever the city’s two main soccer teams meet. Most of the Protestants in Northern Ireland were originally from Scotland (they’re called Scots-Irish or Ulster Scots), and the rivalry between the Glasgow Rangers (the Protestant team) and Celtic (the Catholic team) is said to be the bitterest on Earth. (Imagine if the Yankees and the Red Sox blamed each other for centuries of violence and hostility.) The matches and their aftermaths have been marred by riots and even deaths. Historically, Rangers players were forbidden from making the sign of the cross or dating Catholic girls. But in a sign of progress, the Rangers can now make out with whomever they want—and Northern Ireland has thankfully seen a spot of peace since 2000.

The IRA vs. Sinn Féin
Sinn Féin (pronounced “shin FAYN,” Gaelic for “we ourselves”) is the collective name for various political parties and movements that want independence from England. The Provisional Sinn Féin, or Irish Republican Army, or IRA, or Provos, is a paramilitary (opponents would say terrorist) organization known for its violent resistance to the British presence. In 2005, the IRA renounced violence and began to disarm. Pessimistic historians, however, point to the fact that the Troubles often have a way of being resurrected.

The Dilemma: You’ve heard the names, but can’t pick them out of a lineup. And your ignorance only worsens the guilt you already feel about smallpox and land theft.

People You Can Impress: Native Americans tired of having their history confused, conflated, and occasionally made into Kevin Costner movies

The Quick Trick: Group the animal names together: Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were Sioux who fought at Little Bighorn. Geronimo was an Apache.

The Explanation:
Two of these famous Native American warriors are known to us for helping Custer have his Last Stand at Little Bighorn (June 15, 1876). Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were both members of Lakota Sioux tribes. And the latter (and supposedly zanier) of the two was known for going into battle without war paint or headdress, instead just rubbing himself with dirt. Despite their contribution to the Custer massacre, both warriors were granted amnesty by the U.S. government. In fact, Crazy Horse was even made an officer in the U.S. Indian Scouts and invited to meet President Rutherford B. Hayes (although he declined). Today a memorial to Crazy Horse is being built in the Black Hills of South Dakota—though it’s been under construction since 1948! Th e original sculptor, Korczak Ziolkowski, died in 1982. When it’s finally finished though, the equestrian sculpture will be over 600 feet long and nearly as tall, making it the largest statue in the world.

As for Sitting Bull, the warrior spent four months in 1885 touring with Buff alo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show, delighting audiences by swearing at them in his native tongue. While this hardly seems a life for such a noteworthy American, his end was even more tragic. Sitting Bull was killed in 1890 while being arrested for fear he would take part in the Ghost Dance, a ceremony performed to rid the land of white people and restore their way of life to Indians.

As for Geronimo, he was from a different region (the Southwest) and tribe (Apache). In fact, Geronimo was actually a shaman—or medicine man—who fought for years against white settlers, side by side with that other famous Apache warrior, Cochise. When he finally surrendered in 1886, it had taken 5,000 troops a year to corral him and his small band of followers. But the white establishment embraced Geronimo once he was captured: He became a bona fide A-list celebrity, even riding in Teddy Roosevelt’s 1905 inaugural parade. He died of pneumonia in 1909 and is buried at Fort Sill, Okla.

Geronimo!
Ever wonder why skydivers shout “Geronimo!” when they jump? Especially since the Apache leader never skydived? The tradition comes from U.S. paratroopers training at Fort Benning in 1940. The night before their first jump, they watched the 1939 film Geronimo. To psych themselves up for the jump out of a perfectly good airplane, they shouted his name.

The Dilemma: You know your sharks from your jets and your Rodgers from your Hammersteins. But what in God’s name is a commonwealth?

Materials Needed: a map of the U.S. and its territories. Just don’t call ‘em colonies!

People You Can Impress: geography buffs or any proud residents of four of our medium-sized, heavily accented states

The Quick Trick: There’re only four commonwealths, so just memorize ‘em, willya? If you can remember John, Paul, George, and Ringo, you can swing MA, PA, VA, and KY.

The Explanation:
There are fifty states in the U.S., but four of them—Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts—officially call themselves commonwealths. And the difference between a commonwealth and a state is, well, nothing. Constitutionally speaking, they’re identical.

Understanding why these states chose the commonwealth moniker and continue to stick to it so proudly is a lot easier once you consider the history of those states. The original meaning of the word commonwealth was a nation or body governed by the people, not some king or tyrant. In fact, the time in British history during which Cromwell and Parliament ruled instead of a king is known as the Commonwealth Period. So when it came time for the American colonies to throw off the yokes of oppression and tea taxes and the excessive use of the letter u in words like colour, the three hotbeds of revolution—Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—were most eager to signal the difference in government. Perhaps remembering the Commonwealth Period, they declared themselves commonwealths. So what about Kentucky? Kentucky had once been merely a giant western county of Virginia (before that, it was called Transylvania). When it started doing its own thing in 1790, Kentucky kept the commonwealth status. Not to mention the whiskey.

But surprisingly enough, those four states aren’t the only ones in our happy American family that are commonwealths. Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands also go by the moniker. In this context, it means that they have certain rights under the U.S. Constitution and fall under our protection, but they don’t qualify for the full benefits of statehood—meaning they don’t get any senators and they also don’t get to eat deep-fried Twinkies, because they don’t get to have state fairs. (Kentucky, on the other hand, has a state fair each August, apparently unperturbed by the fact that it is not, technically, a state.)

State of Dissatisfaction
After the commonwealth of Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, several northwestern Virginia counties went ahead and seceded from the seceders, choosing instead to stay in the Union. Those counties formed the state of West Virginia, feeling no compunction to keep the commonwealth label.

The Dilemma: You’re looking to go to a Catholic church, but as it happens, you don’t know your mass from your elbow.

People You Can Impress: popes, cardinals, priests, bishops, ministers, deacons, nuns, altar boys, and your really, really devout grandmother

The Quick Trick: The quickest trick is just to call everything “church.”

The Explanation:
In the days of old Rome, basilica referred to any public building built in the shape of a rectangle with a main aisle down the middle and flanking aisles separated by columns (i.e., from above, it looks like a cross). Once Rome became Christianized, a lot of these buildings were converted into churches. So if a church was built in this style, it can rightly be called a basilica. Unless, of course, it’s a Roman Catholic church.

Why? Roman Catholic basilicas must be designated as such by the pope himself! Just to clarify, a regular church can get called up to the majors if it has particular spiritual or historical signifi cance to the capital-C Church. The granddaddy of all basilicas, for instance, is St. Peter’s, one of seven major basilicas in Rome.

Unlike regular churches, basilicas have special trappings as traditional emblems of their basilica-ness. One is the conopaeum, an umbrella-like fixture with silk panels of red and yellow, symbolically used to shelter His Holiness in the event of a visit. More important, each Catholic basilica has a door designated as its “holy door.” This door, being holy and all, is opened only on special occasions. Hence, it was a pretty big deal when Pope John Paul II ordered all the holy doors open for the entire year 2000. (We can only imagine the ungodly heating bills.)

To add a pinch more confusion: Some basilicas are also cathedrals. A cathedral is the home church of a bishop or archbishop.

So what’s a shrine, then? Simple: A shrine is a holy spot (usually a church) where something very holy has happened (a person was martyred or a holy apparition seen) or a holy relic is housed (say, a saint’s pinky toe—see below). Canterbury Cathedral in England, for instance, is a shrine because St. Thomas Becket was martyred there.

If you haven’t figured it out already, some churches are lucky enough to be all three. But you don’t have to go to Rome to stumble upon the trifecta. Just hit up the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore the next time you’re looking to confess in style.

The Saintliest Thing in Pittsburgh
The largest collection of relics outside of the Vatican is actually located in Pittsburgh, Pa. In the 19th century, a priest and doctor named Suitbert (Suitbert!) Mollinger became the parish priest at St. Anthony’s in Pittsburgh, and he soon took to gathering relics. In fact, by his death in 1892, he had 5,000 of them—from St. Anthony’s tooth to St. Ursula’s femur. And that’s all in the days before eBay!

The Dilemma: Ever since they took the rod out of the Iron Curtain and sent communism to the cleaners, your knowledge ofcompeting political philosophies has blurred.

People You Can Impress: your ninth-grade civics teacher and Fidel Castro

The Quick Trick: Just toss socialism around in conversation and you’re guaranteed to be right.

The Explanation:
While both terms basically mean that property and the means of production are being shared for the good of the people, socialism is much more loosely defined and, as such, encompasses communism. The spectrum of socialism is pretty wide, from social democracies like Sweden to societies where the state assumes responsibility for all economic planning, like the Soviet Union back when it was the Soviet Union. The idea, put simply, is cooperation instead of competition.

More specifically, communism has evolved from the Greeks (Plato advocated a world of communal bliss and harmony without private property) to Sir Thomas More’s Utopia to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s Communist Manifesto to Vladimir Lenin’s Russian revolution. Much of the theory for communism grew out of discontent in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. Blue-collar workers were often treated appallingly, and the idea of a classless society with shared resources seemed ideal. In fact, Engels and Marx predicted that when economic forces became insufferable, the lower classes would revolt to create a communist state. Well, maybe not. While there are quite a few social democracies extant today, communist strongholds are few and far between.

Good to Know
Oddly enough, Adam Smith’s bible of capitalism, Wealth of Nations—often quoted with authority by proponents of small government—actually advocates a somewhat socialist brand of democracy. Smith, who famously coined the term “invisible hand” to describe the way in which looking out for number one magically equates to looking out for the whole community, also recognized that increased wealth alone would not make for healthy communities.

Seeing Red: American Communists
In the 1950s, everyone was accused of belonging to the Communist Party. But these folks actually did:

John Dos Passos
Langston Hughes
Pete Seeger
Richard Wright
Elia Kazan
W.E.B. DuBois

The Dilemma: Here you are, 30 years old, and you feel like such a schmendrick because you don’t know your bubkes from your tochis.

People You Can Impress: everyone at the bar mitzvah

The Quick Trick: Ask the person next to you what he or she thinks about reincarnation. Hasidic Judaism is a more mystical and emotional spirituality that includes beliefs in prophetic dreams, miracles, spiritual healing, and—yes—the Big R. Of course, there’s also the attire. Most Hasidic Jews wear black robes called bekishe, nicely accessorized with a gartel, or prayer belt.

The Explanation:
Hasidic and Orthodox Jews both believe Old Testament laws and other sacred Jewish writings are 100 percent applicable today. In fact, Hasidic Jews used to be Orthodox Jews—right up until the 18th century. By contrast, other Jewish sects believe the rules were only meant for the time period in which they were written.

That’s when a Polish worker named Israel ben Eliezer began preaching that anyone could communicate with God, not just the learned men who studied religious texts. To Ben Eliezer, emotional and mystical piety were just as important as the scholarly spirituality of Orthodox Judaism, if not more so. His sect eventually came to be called Hasidism (or Chasidism), from the Hebrew word meaning “pious.” By the mid-19th century, most Jews in the Ukraine were Hasidic, and a number of sects within sects developed out of Ben Eliezer’s teachings. However, all the varieties of Hasidism emphasize close communion with an omnipresent God and a kabbalah-influenced mysticism.

With their distinct dress, Hasidic Jews are pretty hard to miss, and that’s part of the point. They believe their faith separates them from the general population and that their style of dress should reflect this distinction. It’s also an expression of their commitment to tradition, as their dress today was typical for Ukrainian Jews 250 years ago. Male Hasidic Jews also sometimes sport long beards and curled sideburns called payot, based on a biblical commandment barring men from shaving the sides of their faces.

Orthodox Jews and Vulcans—What’s the Similarity?
The split-fingered Vulcan salute from Star Trek is actually derived from an Orthodox ritual, the Blessing Hands used to anoint congregations on holy days. Star Trek icon Leonard Nimoy, who was raised in the Orthodox tradition, adapted the hand gesture for his role as Mr. Spock.

The Dilemma: Thanks to your poor credit, another bank just turned down your loan application. You’re thinking of declaring yourself an independent nation and seeking financial help from one of these two organizations. But which one is most likely to
cough up some cash?

People You Can Impress: dictators of the developing world, international financiers, and hotties wearing turtle outfits at G8 summit protests

The Quick Trick: The Bank lends you money; the Fund concerns itself with nations’ exchange rates and fiscal policies.

The Explanation:
Don’t feel bad if you can’t tell these institutions apart. They were created at the same time, in July of 1944, in the tiny New Hampshire village of Bretton Woods. And no less an economist than John Maynard Keynes, whom both the World Bank and the IMF see as a founding father, found the names confusing: He felt the Bank should be called a Fund and the Fund a Bank.

The International Monetary Fund was created primarily to avert future Great Depressions, in the hopes that preventing depressions would prevent world wars starring an angry Germany. The IMF seeks to promote stability both internationally and within member nations by requiring open access to currency exchange, encouraging free trade (which has earned the ire of protesters both in America and the developing world), and preventing the wild fluctuations in currency value that preceded World War II. The IMF also maintains an actual fund of money, which it uses to help bail out nations that abide by its policies but still find themselves in dire economic straits.

The World Bank, on the other hand, is properly known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is a fairly good description of what it does. Initially created to help rebuild the economies of postwar Europe (which was a bit ambitious, since it was created several months before the war in Europe ended), the World Bank now seeks to build infrastructure by giving low-interest loans to nations in the developing world.

Both institutions are controversial for more or less the same reason: Their ostensible goal is to help economically troubled nations develop and stabilize, but critics say that they really do the opposite. The World Bank saddles them with more debt, and the IMF hurts the poor with its emphasis on free international trade. But advocates of the system, and there are many, argue that free trade and cheap infrastructure will make both economic and political stability more feasible throughout the world. We’ve avoided another world war thus far, anyway.

The Dilemma: You have this, uh, friend. Yeah, that’s it—a friend. And he’s gotten himself into a little bit of a, um, predicament. He just needs some legal advice, that’s all.

People You Can Impress: the whole gang down in Cell Block C. Love you guys!

The Quick Trick: Did your “friend” plan the crime ahead of time? If so, it’s murder.

The Explanation:
Most of the world’s legal systems distinguish between cold-blooded killings, crimes of passion, and accidental (but still unlawful) deaths. In America, “murder” applies to deaths involving some period of premeditation. But this is a little problematic, because the period of forethought and planning can comprise years or a fraction of a second. Technically, all purposeful crimes involve some measure of premeditation—i.e., there’s always a moment between your brain sending the signal to shoot and your hand squeezing the trigger. So it falls to the jury to decide what constitutes adequate forethought and planning to be called murder. The typical sentence for murder in America is either 25 years in prison or life without the possibility of parole; only about 2.5 percent of murders nationwide result in death sentences.

If it’s not quite murder, but was still done on purpose, then it might be “voluntary manslaughter.” (Take the classic example of the cuckolded husband who catches his wife in the sack with another man and snaps.) Known as “Man 1” on the 37 varieties of Law & Order, voluntary manslaughter generally results in a sentence between 15 and 20 years in prison. A third category, “involuntary manslaughter,” covers situations in which the killing is neither planned nor intentional—for instance, convincing your buddy that riding his bike off a cliff would be totally rad. The most common variety of involuntary manslaughter stems from drunk driving: In 2004, 16,694 Americans were killed in alcohol-related car crashes.

It May Be a Small World . . .
. . . but criminal law still differs widely from nation to nation:
In Japan, the worst sentences are reserved for people who kill their own descendants. In Italy, punishments may be lessened if killers can prove they acted to avenge their honor.

Murder Was the Case That They Gave Me
“187” has become ubiquitous slang for murder thanks to rappers like Snoop Dogg (who was once acquitted of murder). Why? Section 187 of the California Penal Code covers murder—but that’s not always the case. In Texas, for instance, murder isn’t a 187 but a 19.03, which doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well.

The Dilemma: You want to get rich quick, but you don’t really want to work. So what’s the appropriate index for you?

People You Can Impress: people in suits

The Quick Trick: Unless you’re reading this book in 2037 and times have drastically changed, the NASDAQ Composite Index is lower than the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The Explanation:
The DJIA was created by former Wall Street Journal cofounder Charles Dow in 1896. Dow picked 12 important companies from a variety of industries, from the U.S. Leather Company to the American Sugar Company (things had more transparent names in the days before Exelon). The only company still on the list is General Electric. Today the average includes not 12 companies but 30, from 3M to Wal-Mart. When first published, the DJIA stood at 40.94. Th e DJIA hadn’t closed above 1,000 until 1972. But the ’80s and ’90s were periods of intense growth for the stock market as a whole, which was reflected in the Average: By January of 2000, just before the dot-com bust, the average reached 11,722.98.

Although it only reflects what’s happening to a tiny percentage of publicly traded companies, the DJIA has been an important measure of the stock market’s health for more than a century, and it’s unlikely to go anywhere. There are broader, more accurate reflections of what’s happening (like the S&P 500 index), but at the end of the day, the most attention is still paid to the DJIA.

That’s starting to change, however, thanks largely to the NASDAQ. Most DJIA companies are traded on the New York Stock Exchange; the NASDAQ exchange is a relative newcomer to the stock exchange game (it was founded in 1971), and was the world’s first fully electronic stock market. As befits a digital stock exchange, many of NASDAQ’s marquis stocks are tech companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com, and Dell. The NASDAQ Composite Index is an alternative to the DJIA. Instead of measuring the peaks and troughs of 30 big companies, it measures the change in the more than 3,000 stocks traded on NASDAQ. Because it’s a tech-heavy stock exchange, it suffered much worse than the DJIA after the dot-com bust, falling from 5,132 to a low below 1,200 in 2002. Still, the NASDAQ Composite Index started back in 1971 with a value of ex- actly 100—so it’s done well overall. If there are any lessons to be drawn from the histories of both DJIA and NASDAQ, it is these: Long-term investors tend to make more money. And, perhaps most important, investors who start out rich tend to get richer.

The Dilemma: The guy sitting next to you at the bar keeps insisting that John Wayne Gacy wasn’t a serial killer but a mass murderer, which is really creepy. But is he right?

People You Can Impress: authors of true crime novels and suckers for semantics

The Quick Trick: The creepy guy at the bar is full of it: Gacy was a serial killer because he committed many murders over a long period of time; mass murderers commit many murders all at once.

The Explanation:
The difference here is all about the details—but then, any CSI fan knows that the magic of police work is in the little things. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Statistics Bureau (and yes, there really is such a thing), “mass murder” is a single event at one location involving the murder of four or more people. Kill three people at once, therefore, and you’re merely a homicidal jerk. Terrorism and government-sanctioned murder often are considered mass murder.

Serial killers, on the other hand, kill in a series of events. The killers usually don’t know their victims (the opposite is true with mass murderers), they almost always have “cooling off ” periods between murders, and they usually derive sexual excitement from the killings. To qualify as a serial killer, one needs three victims. It rather goes without saying, but serial killers tend to be pretty screwed up individuals. Although there are records of serial killers going back to at least 1400, the term wasn’t coined until the 1970s, when killers Ted Bundy and David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz were frequently in the news.

SERIAL KILLERS

GILLES DE RAIS (1404–1440): Once one of the richest men in France, Rais raped, tortured, and murdered between 80 and 200 boys—and a few girls—on the grounds of his various estates.

Long before there was Aileen “Monster” Wuornos, there was ELIZABETH “THE BLOODY LADY” Bathory (1560–1614). Some sources claim that Bathory, a Hungarian countess, tortured and killed 2,000 young girls (mostly peasants, but some lower gentry).

When it comes to British serial killers in the 19th century, Jack the Ripper gets all the press. But MARY ANN COTTON (1832–1873) was more prolific, killing as many as 21 people. Cotton probably poisoned four of her husbands, a variety of her friends and in-laws, and several of her own children with arsenic.

MASS MURDERERS

The term “going postal” has its roots in the case of one PATRICK SHERRILL, a disgruntled former postman who walked
into the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma, on August 20, 1986, and killed 14 employees before committing suicide.

On November 1, 1955, JACK GILBERT GRAHAM put his mother on a flight from Denver to Portland with a dynamite bomb in her suitcase. (Graham wanted her life insurance money.) The bomb exploded midair, killing all 44 people aboard.

The Dilemma: You’re pretty sure both these ancient civilizations were located north of Antarctica and south of Dallas—but that’s about all you know.

People You Can Impress: It’s not so much a matter of impressing people as it is not embarrassing yourself when chatting up armchair historians.

The Quick Trick: The dominant ethnic group in the Aztec empire were the Mexica (pron. meh-SHEE-kuh), hence Mexico. The Inca empire was centered in what is today Peru.

The Explanation:
It’s easy to confuse your Aztecs with your Incans because they have a great deal in common: Both empires reached their peaks in the early 16th century, both made huge technological and scientific discoveries, both dabbled in the delicate art of human sacrifice, and both suffered mightily at the hands of Spanish conquistadors.

As for differences, though, the easiest distinction is geography. The Inca empire controlled parts of modern-day Chile, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Colombia. The Aztecs, meanwhile, set up camp more than 1,000 miles to the north. To protect themselves from invaders, the Aztecs built their capital city, Tenochtitlán, on a large island in the middle of Lake Texcoco. These days, Mexico City stands upon the ruins of Tenochtitlán. (As for the lake, almost all of the water has been drained to make room for suburbs.)

Between 1375 and 1521, the Aztecs built a thriving empire with influence that extended throughout the area that is today’s Mexico. The Aztecs were among the world’s first people to require education for all children (even girls!) regardless of social standing. Of course, girls were not taught how to read and write at school (the Aztecs were ahead of their time, sure—but girls reading and writing? That’s crazy talk); their education was focused on home and children. In 1521, the Aztecs were conquered by Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés, who defeated them partly by giving them smallpox and partly by raising an army of 200,000 indigenous people opposed to Aztec rule.

As for the Incas, their empire started out as a small tribe, but beginning in 1438, they rapidly expanded through the Andes mountain range, eventually controlling most of the western coast of South America. Their empire was notable for its diversity: More than 700 languages were spoken in Incan land, and the empire never really coalesced into a single political entity. In the end, the Incas never got the chance to build a lasting civilization, mainly because in 1532, Francisco Pizarro showed up. With only 200 men and 27 horses, Pizarro should have been crushed. But, like Cortés, he had two things working to his favor: smallpox and thousands of indigenous people resentful of Incan rule.

Both empires’ stories finish sadly—but then neither Pizarro nor Cortés fared all that well, either. Pizarro was assassinated in 1541, and Cortés spent much of his later life suffering from bouts of insane paranoia.

The Dilemma: You know they were both presidents, and you probably know that John “No Q” Adams came before John Q. Adams, but you sure couldn’t tell them apart in a presidential lineup.

People You Can Impress: the legions of people who read David McCullough’s bestselling John Adams and the 47 people who read Paul C. Nagel’s John Quincy Adams

The Quick Trick: John Q, who was the son of Just John, had muttonchops. Also, Q was a completely ineffective president; Adams, a moderately ineffective one.

The Explanation:
While his second cousin Samuel “They Named a Beer for Me” Adams had all the charisma and participated in such rollicking parties as the Boston Tea one, John Adams was a studious lawyer and policy wonk. While Sam dumped tea in the Boston harbor to protest taxes, John was writing letters to the editor opposing the Stamp Act. Yet the wonkish John was popular enough to receive 34 electoral college votes in the U.S.’s first presidential election in 1789. George Washington got 69 (no snickering), and was elected president—Adams, having finished second, was given the post of vice president.

Unfortunately, Mr. Adams didn’t think much of the gig, saying, “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived. . . .” Despite his overuse of the word contrived, Adams managed to win the presidential election of 1797. Adams’s primary accomplishment was almost getting America into a war with France after a French minister was rude to an American envoy. Soon after, he was defeated in the election of 1800 by his vice president, Thomas Jefferson—making John Adams the first-ever one-term president.

Adams’s son John Q. followed in his proud father’s footsteps by becoming the second-ever one-term president. After a stellar career as a diplomat, John Q. ran for president in 1824. And although he lost both the popular and electoral vote, no one won a majority, so the election went to the House of Representatives, where John Q. made enough friends to be declared prez. John Q. had a lot of interesting ideas—he wanted to start a federal highway system and a national public university, for instance. Unfortunately, he had his father’s lack of charisma, and could never convince Congress or the American public of the value of his policies. Q. was soundly defeated in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, but he ended up not getting fired from government so much as suffering a demotion. He served in the House of Representatives from 1831 to his death in 1848, where he proved to be a far better congressman than president. In fact, he spent much of his congressional career trying to end slavery.

The Dilemma: The recipe calls for penne, but all you have is rigatoni. Mama mia!

People You Can Impress: men in the “sanitation business” or women who pinch your cheeks and tell you you’re too skinny

The Quick Trick: Who cares? Mange!

The Explanation:
Let’s start with the word pasta. It’s so commonplace that you generally don’t even think about the word itself. But pasta is simply Italian for “paste,” the flour-and-water dough from which pasta is made. The fancy culinary term is “alimentary paste.” Now you may be thinking, Uncooked pasta’s not a paste. It’s hard until I boil it. That’s only because Americans mostly buy dried pasta in boxes. Fresh pasta is actually soft.

Today culinary scientists estimate that there are roughly one bazillion kinds of pasta, or so we’ve heard. A lot of them are so similar, it makes you wonder why they ever came up with them (can anyone explain why we needed two corkscrew pastas: fusilli and rotini? And don’t get us started on spiralini). But obviously, a food so central to the Italian lifestyle is going to have lots of variations.

All four of these pastas are tubular, which is why people get them confused. Like most pastas, they’re named after what they look like.

We’ll start with the most basic. Ziti are smooth, short tubes. The name comes from the now obsolete word in the Tuscan dialect, citta, meaning “girl” or “bride.” Some stories claim the pasta got its name because it was often served at weddings. Others say it was named after the masculine version, citto (“bridegroom”), because it looks a bit phallic.

Rigatoni, on the other hand, are basically ziti with ridges (from the Italian rigate). The theory is that ridged pasta holds on to the sauce better. If your tubes are slightly curved and ridged, however, they’re tortiglioni. If the tubes are straight but the ridges are spiral, enjoy your elicoidali, paesan.

Now on to the diagonal tubes. Much like the ridge innovation, the diagonal cuts to the ends of these pastas are meant to be better for scooping up sauce. If a diagonally cut tube is smooth, that’s mostaccioli, meaning “little mustache,” because at some point little mustaches must have looked more like this. Penne are like mostaccioli, but slightly longer and thinner. As for their meaning, penne means “quill pens,” the tips of which penne resemble.

Of course, your tubular choices don’t exactly end there. You might also enjoy paccheri, maltagliati, canneroni, cannolicchi, reginelle, and pasta al ceppo. And when all else fails, you can’t go wrong with elbow macaroni.

Cooking 101
Add a pinch of salt to cooking pasta to keep it firm. Oh, and should you combine different types of pasta in one dish, be sure to use similarly shaped varieties, so that they cook in the same amount of time.

The Dilemma: Two thick white dressings with similar flavor in similar-looking jars are bearing down on you from your refrigerator, and you’re asking yourself just one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?

People You Can Impress: deli-goers and anyone killing time in the checkout line

The Quick Trick: Taste them both side by side. The sweeter one is Miracle Whip.

The Explanation:
In 1756, the French under Louis François Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, duc de Richelieu, captured Mahón on the Spanish-held island of Minorca. In honor of this victory, the duc’s chef created a new dressing for his master: Mahonnaise. It wasn’t until 1905, however, at Richard Hellmann’s New York deli, that Americans got to taste the goods. But boy, did it catch on! Within seven years, he’d mass-marketed the condiment as Hellmann’s Blue Ribbon Mayonnaise.

To be frank, mayo is one of those love-it-or-hate-it things. The lovers know that, in its most authentic form, mayo’s a pretty simple affair: raw egg yolks, oil, lemon juice or vinegar, and spices. Not much room for improvement.

But in 1933, Kraft Foods thought differently. Inventor Charles Chapman’s patented emulsifying machine allowed regular mayonnaise to be evenly blended with cheaper dressings and more than 20 different spices (plus sugar). The result was Miracle Whip, which debuted at the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair. Promising to create “Salad Miracles with Miracle Whip Salad Dressing,” the Whip was an instant hit. (Note: It’s not known if the dressing is responsible for any non-salad- related miracles.)

The main differences between Miracle Whip and mayonnaise are the sweeteners: high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are the fourth and fifth ingredients, respectively, of Miracle Whip.

And a Word About Grey Poupon
While we’re on the subject of condiments, we couldn’t resist the opportunity to squeeze in a quick fact about mustard, or more specifically Grey Poupon. While it sounds hoity-toity, the name Grey Poupon isn’t so much about the mustard’s color as it is the names of two 18th-century big-time mustard firms from Dijon (run by guys cleverly named Maurice Grey and Antoine Poupon). The name can be a bit confusing, and even unappetizing, to French speakers, as poupon means “newborn baby.”

The Dilemma: After several glasses, you don’t much care what the difference is, but we’re here to tell you anyway!

People You Can Impress: gourmets, gourmands, bartenders, dates, and your more refined alcoholics

The Quick Trick: Liqueurs are for nuts (hazelnuts, almonds), cordials are for fruit (lemon, orange, etc). And schnapps—well, just remember they’re not schweetened.

The Explanation:
If you’re looking for a basic rule of thumb, try this: Cordials are liquors made from fruit or fruit juice, while liqueurs are alcoholic drinks made from seeds, herbs, or nuts. So triple sec, sloe gin, Grand Marnier, Cointreau, Curaçao, brandy, kir, framboise, and Chambord would all be cordials. On the other hand, Jägermeister, Pernod, Kahlúa, Amaretto, Frangelico, Strega, and Chartreuse are liqueurs. (And for those of you looking for a good time across the pond, beware! In England, the word cordial usually refers to a sweetened drink that is not alcoholic—Rose’s Lime Cordial being a prime example.)

But back to the happy juice. Cordials and liqueurs aside, you’ve got some drinks that fall into a weird gray area, being made from things that are neither fruits nor nuts nor herbs. Advocaat is a creamy, liqueur made of eggs (i.e., it is both a drink and a hangover cure). And Drambuie is a scotch whisky-based liqueur made with honey, herbs, and spices. Other whiskey-based liqueurs include Bailey’s Irish Cream and South- ern Comfort (which is cordial-like because it contains fruit, although there’s nothing cordial about what it does to your gut).

To further confuse matters, there’s a whole category of liqueurs called anisées, which are made with anise, which tastes like licorice. Absinthe is the most famous anisée. Banned in America because of the hallucinatory wormwood in it, absinthe’s traditional nickname is the Green Fairy, which should tell you a bit about its effect on the drinker.

But what about that other syrupy headache inducer, schnapps? Most Americans would think there’s no real difference, but Germans would take considerable umbrage at that. True German schnapps are clear, distilled from fruits, and are not sweetened. The American versions however, marketed by companies like DeKuyper, are heavily sweetened and unfairly give true schnapps a bad reputation.

Aperitif vs. Digestif
While the line between liqueurs and cordials isn’t always clear, the one between apertifs and digestifs is. Simply stated: Aperitifs are for before dinner, to help stimulate the appetite. Classic aperitifs include the Martini, the Manhattan, the Old-Fashioned, and the Sidecar. Digestifs are, obviously, to aid digestion, and are drunk after dinner. If you’re aiming to put a bit more class in your act, try closing out your next meal with one of these digestif Hall of Famers: the White (or Black) Russian, the Brandy Alexander, Kahlúa, the Grasshopper, Amaretto, port, or cognac.

The Dilemma: Sure, your friend’s been on the cover of Vogue a couple of times now, but does that make her legitimately super?

People You Can Impress: supermodels!

The Quick Trick: A model gets arrested for snorting cocaine; a supermodel gets on the cover of People for snorting cocaine.

The Explanation:
Like beauty itself, supermodeldom is in the eye of the beholder. One day, perhaps, there will be a Model Sanctioning Body that will establish clear rules for who qualifies as a supermodel—but until then we’ll just have to muddle our way through. The difference between regular and super models is generally believed to involve not money but fame: A supermodel is someone whose celebrity extends outside of the fashion world. That is to say, you don’t have to know your Dolce from your Gabbana to know that Cindy Crawford is really pretty.

Janice Dickinson, the thrice-divorced Surreal Life alum who wrote the literary gem Everything About Me Is Fake . . . And I’m Perfect, coined the term supermodel in 1979. Hence, she calls herself the world’s first supermodel. But we feel that no one who ever appeared on Surreal Lifeshould be legally allowed the title of “super” anything. A better candidate for first-ever supermodel might be Suzy Parker. Born in 1932, the 5’10″ Parker ushered in the era of tall female models, starred in many ad campaigns, and appeared in the movie Funny Face with Fred Astaire. She also became one of the first fashion models to be really, really bad at acting. But being unable to act your way out of a paper bag is just all part of la vita supermodel.

Nadja Auermann: Said to have the world’s longest legs (they’re 45″), Auermann has appeared on many magazine covers, starred in a couple German movies, and has her own perfume. But 1) these days, everybody has her own perfume, and 2) nobody outside of Germany can pronounce her last name. Verdict: model.

Naomi Campbell: Instantly recognizable, Campbell’s made $50 million modeling, was one of People’s 50 Most Beautiful People in 1991, wrote (well, cowrote) a novel, and sold one million copies of her first and only album, Babywoman. (It was a failure in America, but a single from it was a huge hit in Japan.) Plus, she used to date Usher. Verdict: supermodel.

Helena Christensen: This former Miss Denmark changed our lives forever with her appearance in the music video for Chris Isaak’s Wicked Game. And she dated Leonardo DiCaprio (although, really, at this point who hasn’t?) in addition to appearing on the cover of countless fashion mags. But she never managed to parlay the Wicked Game video into widespread renown. Nothing personal, Helena, but we’re gonna say: model.

Tyson Beckford: A former gangbanger who left the streets behind to become the face of Calvin Klein apparel, Beckford is the highest-paid male model in human history. He also appeared in Zoolander and 2003’s Oscar-nominated Biker Boyz. What’s that you say? Biker Boyz wasn’t nominated for an Oscar? Oh, well. The verdict’s still: supermodel.

The Dilemma: You’re at a restaurant. You’ve specifically asked for a Coke when you get handed a Pepsi, or vice versa. You tell the waiter what you requested, and he gives you the “What’s the difference?” shrug. Perhaps it’s time you laid it on him.

People You Can Impress: “Impressed” probably doesn’t accurately reflect the aforementioned waiter’s likely response.

The Quick Trick: If you drink them side by side, Pepsi is the sweeter of the two (which is why people tend to prefer Pepsi in the Pepsi Challenge).

The Explanation:
Although the fantastic ad campaigns run by both companies would have you think otherwise, the soft drinks’ similarities are pretty striking. For starters, Pepsi and Coke were both the brainchildren of Southern pharmacists. Coca-Cola was invented by Atlantan Dr. John Pemberton in 1886. And yes, there was originally a concentration of cocaine in the soda, but it was reduced to a tiny amount (1/400th of a grain per ounce) by 1902 and removed altogether by 1930. Th e Coca-Cola Company changed hands a few times, and after Prohibition Coca-Cola was sold to the Woodruff family for $25 million.

Pepsi, on the other hand, was born a few years after Coke. In 1893, pharmacist Caleb Bradham began experimenting withvarious drink mixtures in New Bern, N.C. His 1898 concoction, then known by the creative name “Brad’s Drink,” became an overnight success, and “Doc” Bradham began selling his “Exhilarating, Invigorating, Digestion Aiding” syrup by the gallon (7,968 of them for soda fountains in his first year). In the 1940s, Pepsi, as the drink came to be known, adopted a red, white, and blue logo to support America’s war effort (or to profit from a hollow, contrived gesture of patriotism—if you’re a Coke drinker).

While both drinks contain vanilla, rare oils, carbonated water, kola nut extracts, and the widely beloved high-fructose corn syrup, Coca-Cola maintains a secret ingredient: the mysterious “7X.” The formula for the soft drink (including 7X) is kept in a bank vault in Atlanta, and employees who know the secret formula sign nondisclosure agreements before they get to peek at the recipe. In fact, the secret of 7X is so well kept that Coke was for a time forced to abandon the market in India after a law there required that all trade-secret information be disclosed to the government. The law was changed in 1991, and ever since, Coke and Pepsi have been vying for the lion’s share of the Indian market.

Soda Myths
1. Neither Coke nor Pepsi will kill you if combined with Pop Rocks.
2. A tooth left in a glass of cola will not dissolve overnight. Nor will a penny, for that matter. And while anything with sugar and acid—orange juice, for instance—will eventually dissolve teeth, it takes quite a while.