Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 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.

September 7

Is United States of America Bankrupt?

Are the vast majority of people in USA getting poorer (financially) by the year? 122.107.177.150 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the unemployment rate just reached 6.1%, the gap between rich and poor has bee steadily widening, the cost of just about everything went up quite a bit recently while wages largely stayed the same (but many businesses are losing employees by attrition and replacing them when they can by lower paid employees, so wages are effectively going down). This is all over the news, I don't see the need to ask the reference desk. If you want opinions about why... well, there's facts and there's political posturing, both of which are available from many sources, wikipedia included. - Lambajan 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Though, it must be said that minimum wage has increased drastically in the US over the last couple of years. So the least paid people in the US make more now than they did 5 years ago. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're working the same number of hours. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean over the long term, I don't expect so. I've not seen the figures for the US but the UK figures show real terms growth across the board. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor, but the poor are still getting richer. I would expect the US figures to be similar. --Tango (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the poor becoming richer in real terms or nominal terms? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's real terms growth (assuming I'm remembering correctly - I'll try and find the numbers). --Tango (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Either I'm remembering incorrectly, or the US and UK aren't similar in that respect. I just found this saying median income in the US dropped 1.1% in real terms between 2000 and 2006 (it apparently grew since then, though). I'll keep trying to find the UK figures that I'm remembering. --Tango (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that (in the US) the poor are becoming poorer. In fact, the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). The reason people quote a rise in the income gap is because the rich are becoming richer (in real terms) *faster* than the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). Wikiant (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article I link to above would cast that into doubt. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your article is in error. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics publication, "Statistical Abstract of the United States" 2006 edition, Table 673. A summary is here.

The last time nominal GDP per capita declined was 1958. Other years of decline since data was first collected (1929) are 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1946, 1949 and 1954. For nominal disposable personal income, deduct 1946, 1949, 1954 and 1958 (i.e., the last decline was in 1938).

In real (Chain-linked) terms GDP per capita declined 0.3% in 2001, and real disposable personal income declined last in 1993.

Both measures declined in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1954, 1958, 1974 and 1991. Real GDP per capita alone declined in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1982. Source: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=253&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1929&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, but it might be more useful averaged out over each decade, or something. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

US GDP per Capita and Disposable Income per Capita:

Decade	Nom. GDP pc	Nom Dis Inc pc	Real GDP pc	Real Dis Inc pc
1930s	-1.9%	-2.2%	+0.2%	+0.3%
1940s	+9.8%	+8.9%	+4.2%	+2.7%
1950s	+4.8%	+4.5%	+2.3%	+1.9%
1960s	+5.4%	+5.3%	+3.0%	+3.0%
1970s	+8.9%	+9.1%	+2.2%	+2.4%
1980s	+6.9%	+7.4%	+2.1%	+2.3%
1990s	+4.1%	+4.0%	+1.9%	+2.0%
2000s	+4.1%	+4.1%	+1.5%	+1.5%

DOR (HK) (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Need Chinese History Expert

A long time ago a read a book about a Chinese revolutionary, but I can't remember his name. Everything I remember about him:

-It was a man
-He had a "golden tongue" (meaning, he was "eloquent")
-When taken prisoner, he used his persuasive powers to convince his (communist?) captor to let him go. The captor, who was a soldier, hung himself, moved to tearful suicide by the revolutionary's speech.
-The revolutionary was captured many more times, but always convinced his guards to let him go, so amazing were his oratorical skills. 128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)JustCurious

Sorry, not enough to go on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin and polar bears

Is the following really true and accurate? (ie: that S. Palin is suing the Bush administration): "The 44-year-old governor says a federal government decision to protect the polar bear will cripple energy development offshore. As a result, she is suing the Bush administration, which ruled the polar bear is endangered and needs protection."[[1]]. If it is, is she likely to win? --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather doubtful that someone could sue an administration. She could conceivably sue the federal government, but it is highly unlikely (to the point of ridiculousness), seeing as this is an election year. This isn't a statement as to whether she would or would not do such a thing, of course, just saying that it's extremely unlikely. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this particular year, suing the current administration could be pretty shrewd politically. They're probably not bragging about it because the undecided independent voters that would appreciate a candidate who sued the current administration would probably be the same ones who would be turned away by a candidate who protects oil companies over polar bears. - Lambajan 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Google search [2] finds plenty of sources saying she sued the Bush administration but I haven't examined the legal technicalities. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gov. Palin could have authorized the Attorney-General of Alaska to sue the federal government challenging the designation of polar bears as a protected species. It would turn out to be politically embarassing now. It might be taken as a sign of independence from the Bush administration. Personally, I find her nomination an embarassment. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not commenting on the plight of artic bears, only whether such a suit is credible. I assume there are netural websites dedicated to finding the veracity of all the rumors.75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she sued to have polar bears de-listed from the Endangered Species Act list because she was concerned that the categorization would hurt the economy of her state. She sued "the Bush administration" in the sense that she had her state sue the Department of the Interior, which is in charge of such listings. Bush himself likely has little to do with such things—those sorts of decisions are delegated pretty far down the line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Often such suits name an officer, claiming that the officer is not following the law. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT OLD FOLKS

WHAT IS THE SUITABLE ENTERTAINMENTS AND GAMES FOR THE OLD FOLKS AT THE OLD FOLKS HOME?118.100.195.105 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My brother-in-law recently brought great joy to the residents of his grandmother's nursing home by bringing in a portable karaoke machine and running it for them for a few hours. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think old folks are generally as individualistic in their interests as young folks and folks in general. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but there are trends. I've heard the wii is becoming quite popular with that lot. - Lambajan 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pet therapy is common in nursing homes here in Australia. Steewi (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballroom dance, games machines and internet access. High speed powered wheelchairs. A psychiatrist uncle of mine used to remove most of the pills and prescribe a half pint of Guinness. :) Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently did a news story (I'm a reporter) about a senior home that got a Wii for its residents. They use it to play tennis, go bowling and other activities they enjoyed when they were younger, but can't get out to do now. — Michael J 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to entertain an old deaf guy with bad eyesight by conversing with him using a computer with a huge font size. Depends on what sort of old folks home it is, but I used to practise the piano during lunch. They were entertained and I got to use a piano. I recommend anything done together that can be social at the same time, e.g walking through gardens chatting about gardening.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

People famous for hand-to-hand combat

The famous generals are well known, but in the Greek/Roman/Viking periods, or any other time before the invention of guns, were there people who are remembered for their skill in individual combat? Are there any historical figures who measure up to legendary people like Ajax of Telamon, Beowulf, or Bodvarr Bjarki? (I can think of one or two from American history, like Jim Bowie, but none earlier). 128.194.34.211 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Achilles, assuming he is based on a historical warrior. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd put Cúchulainn up against Achilles any day (assuming that he was at some point a real guy, that is :). As for a real person who was bad-ass fighter, how about Leonidas I? Honestly I don't really think there are that many that are famous for it, like in the myths, for very practical reasons: you could have supernatural powers of close-combat fighting, but in an army of thousands it wont matter much. Especially when you're fighting in a phalanx (or similar), then everyone has to cooperate and use very specific techniques. If you improvise, showing off you're mad Jackie Chan-moves, then you'd just be breaking the line and degrade the performance of the company as a whole. The people who are remembered are the great strategists, the great generals. One of my favourite people from the Roman empire (well, Byzantine empire, but I've always thought that was a ridiculous distinction) is Flavius Belisarius, quite possibly the greatest military commander in the history of warfare (and the last man ever to receive a triumph). He could pull off miracles at the battlefield, no matter how many Achilleses the other side had. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

zh:李书文 was a master of bājíquán who never lost a duel, I hear. He died through poisoning. --Kjoonlee 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dioxippus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Miyamoto Musashi. Algebraist 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see the article Nine Worthies.--64.228.91.86 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More recently, Xu Shiyou. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with DOR: we don't need to go so far back. Let's add Wong Fei Hung and Bruce Lee to the list. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Sergius --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Still is the story told, How well Horatius kept the bridge, In the brave days of old. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's Sir Lancelot du Lac from King Arthur's court. Saukkomies 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the Bible, Jacob wrestled with an angel this way. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plight of Charter 77 Signatories

I am wondering what happened to the Charter 77 signatories, as the article is rather vague. On of the links there had all the names of the signatories, but when I searched for the names, the results were all in Czech, and I very much doubt that the list includes updates (i.e. marriage, which would probably result in a change of family name)[3]. Could someone tell me what happened to the lesser well known signatories (i.e. I'm rather intrigued (by the print handwriting, which reminds me a bit of the one I used to use!) about the fate of a Marie Švermová)? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The German WP has a short list of signatories, some of which (Vaclav Havel, Pavel Kohout) have articles in the English WP. You can check those via the language links. The Czech version has a much longer list of signatories (again, you can check any English parallel articles via the language links), but neither of the lists include Marie Svermova. There is an article on such a person (1902 - 1992) in the Czech WP, but it does not seem to mention Charta 77. I assume her to be the Marie Svermova (widow of Jan Sverma) who was arrested in the purge of the Communist Party in 1950 and was released in 1956. She is briefly mentioned as the host and guide of young Bill Clinton on his visit to Prague in the 1960s, but I can´t find anything on her activities beyond that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism or learning from experience?

I found the following sentence on an HR web-site:

"Researchers at a university in Germany - where the right to be surly is almost a national pastime - now claim enforced jolliness on the job is much more likely to make people fall ill."

and I ask myself if it is racism or just experience (that can be right or wrong). Is any form of negative comment against group X a form of discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.158.246 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Science desk

Are you saying the negative comment is that in "Germany [...] the right to be surly is almost a national pastime"? I don't see it as a negative comment, but it is a stereotype (see Stereotype#German stereotypes). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard a Germans-are-surly stereotype; the main ones that I'm familiar with are the two somewhat contradictory ones of Germans as jolly lederhosen-and-dirndl-clad Oktoberfest beer drinkers, and Germans as soulless petty bureaucrats who don't care whether what they do is right or wrong, as long as the proper forms are correctly filled out in triplicate. The arrogant militaristic Prussian aristocrat with a duelling scar stereotype is quite old fashioned by now (though it did influence Fearless Leader), but one rising steroetype among British people seems to be that at resorts Germans try to ensure that only other Germans use beach-chairs by assigning someone to sneak down early each morning and put towels on the available beach-chairs en masse, to reserve them (there have been several news stories about spontaneous British beachchair-towel revolts at swimming places frequented by both British and German tourists...). AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my experience German people are not notably surly. In answer to your question, I would say that any broad negative generalization about a group could be considered to be a sign of prejudice. Whether it amounts to discrimination would of course depend on the effect such a comment had, and on the power-relationship between the person making the comment, and members of the group so characterized. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Observing something that applies on average to a group of people (whether good or ill) is not prejudice. For example, it is a fact that (in the US) the average black person is more likely to be incarcerated than the average white person. Neither is it prejudice to assume that *given no other relevant information* a given black person is more likely to have been incarcerated than a given white person. It becomes prejudice when other relevant information is ignored in favor of the single piece of information of the person's skin color. In short, the distinction here is one between making a statistical observation (not prejudice) and inappropriately weighting the statistical observation (prejudice). Let me anticipate the counter-argument that, "it is because society is racist that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites." That's a fair hypothesis, but not germane to my argument -- I'm *not* saying that blacks are more prone to be criminals; I'm saying that (statistically) blacks are more likely to be incarcerated. Wikiant (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "could be considered to be" and "is". DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in this particular case it's not really saying anything. "The right to" is their back door out of trouble. Most people would read this as that interjection is just there to set up the inherent humor of the finding, but if they would take offense to being called surly then they would figure by the way it's written that they're not being called surly but that they respect the freedom to be that way if they choose. The fact that this is really rather harmless helps their weaseling. If they were to talk about a poor communities' right to be jobless and say it's a pastime it would be a much different story. I'm part Irish and the Notre Dame mascot doesn't bother me nearly as much as Chief Wahoo simply because the days of real Irish persecution in my country are long over while racism and prejudice towards First Nations Peoples persists. While that may seem like an aside, I think it gets at the heart of the issue. You can make any sort of outlandish jab at your friends and they take it in stride because they know they're ok with you, but if things actually aren't ok then you have a problem and you need to be careful what you say. - Lambajan 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, this [4] is the source of the quotation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink Houses at the DNC?

I seem to recall Pink Houses, or a snippet of it, being played at some point at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I was just wondering if I am remembering correctly. (I know that Mellencamp told McCain to stop using his songs, and let Edwards use them on his campaign, but I'm specifically wondering about whether they played it at the DNC.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes and Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Looking at the projected tracking map for Hurricane Ike (here [5] or here [6]) that shows it bouncing up the full length of Cuba, I wondered what, if any, precautions will be taken at Guantanamo Bay in the event that such a storms threatens its security. I couldn't find anything on line. Does anyone have a link even to a discussion of it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an answer to my own question:

Strong gusts and steady rains fell at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in southeast Cuba, where all ferries were secured and beaches were off limits. The military said cells containing the detainees — about 255 men suspected of links to the Taliban and al-Qaida — are hurricane-proof. But the base was spared the strongest winds. [7]

I don’t know if it is the correct answer, though. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hurricane proof???" Edison (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is probably another way to say that it was built to withstand a full-on military attack of some sort. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'Securitised mortgages'

Hello wikipedia,

One of the causes of the credit crunch is, apparently, that whilst banks used to limit the amount they borrowed to the amount of money people had saved with them, now banks can 'securitise' mortgages so they can lend much more. So i guess my questions are these, firstly, what is a securitised mortagage and secondly, if i wanted to buy a securitised mortgage (if i was an investor), why would i? (i'm told that when banks lend to people who will basically default, they securitise the mortgage, but why would any one want to buy this -what are you actually buying?) Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Securitization, but I am not sure how helpful it will be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the opening statement to the question is debatable. Credit is often tight but I have never heard of a limit on borrowing equal to the amount the borrower already has on deposit. I know that talking to bankers always makes me feel as if that is what they want, but I don't think it is true. As to mortgages, they are, by definition, secured borrowing. The real property is itself the security for the loan whether the money borrowed is used to purchase the property or for other purposes as permitted by the lender. I am not sure how one might otherwise "securitise" a mortgage. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what securitized means; it means "turned into a financial product", not "made more secure". 87.114.2.167 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the questioner is saying that the lender is limited in its lending capacity based on its liabilities (deposits). One way to ensure they behave is a Capital requirement. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"securitized" means that a big bunch of different mortgages have been grouped together into one big pool, and that pool is chopped up and sold as a security. There are lots of other kinds of securities - they're all backed by some kind of collateral or another (bits of the ownership of companies, a share of government debt, etc.). The handy thing about a security is that it's generic - you don't need to know much about what's inside it to buy and sell it. As property prices were going up, lots of financial companies thought they'd like to invest in this market, but they didn't know much about property and didn't want to bother with the details of hundreds or thousands of individual mortgages in lots of different places. So other companies securitized their mortgages (making mortgage-backed securities), and ratings agencies gave those securities scores. Based on those scores large companies could buy and sell mortgage value without knowing much about buildings and real estate and the property market in Tuscon and how much Mrs Biggs on Escondido Avenue earns. And so everyone was happy. But it turns out that many of those mortgages were sold to people who couldn't really afford them, and that properties were trading hands at values greater than the market could really sustain. Now the ratings agencies should have known this, but they didn't really do a very thorough job of really investigating what was really inside those security bundles - and one could argue that mortages aren't so easily securitizable (that they're not like a commodity like orange juice or steel, where you can empirically test something and know if it's okay or not) but rather that every mortgage and borrower is different in complicated ways, meaning only people who are experts in real estate and who do lots of research should be buying mortgages wholesale. So the collateral that backs the securities is failing, this makes the securities' values plummet. As many institutions have invested a lot (too much) of their own money in these securities, they're taking giant losses. Like all securities, you could get a security broker (an ordinary stockbroker may deal in them), but I don't know if these particular instruments are really sold retail (they're sold in giant chunks from one giant investor to another). 87.114.2.167 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 87.114.2.167. I learned a lot from your answer. Perhaps you might consider adding a section on "mortgage-backed securities" to Securitization. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The book Liar's Poker contains an account of the securitization of the mortgage industry for those who don't want to wade through technical papers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinical Judges in Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court

Can any user please tell me where I can find the names of all the Rabbinical Judges who today sit in the Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rabbonim Avraham Sherman, Avraham Sheinfeld, and Chaggai Izrir [8]. - Lambajan 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, all I could find is news articles. I guess the word for judge is dayan, so I googled 'Supreme Rabbinical Court dayanim'. - Lambajan 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Sinking of the HMHS Britannic

Is the timeline of the sinking of the HMHS Britannic in this page is the correct one? Aquitania (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)