Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 30

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 30

Identify this British WWI Quote

Who can identify the WWI British Statesman/historian who said:

"Argument never makes headway against Conviction, and Conviction takes no part in Argument, because it knows."

The quote can be heard at about 33:10 of episode 2 of the BBC's 1964 Great War documentary. THanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Google could only find it quoted three times, all of them on US forums, the earliest being 2007. I'll have another go when I have time later. Alansplodge (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Google Books was more fruitful. It seems to be from The Outbreak of War, 1914 by E. F. Benson – cite here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! I was searching for the exact phrase. Well done Jack! Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Are any of you able to see the actual quote? Google books doesn't allow me any access. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Argument, the presentation of reasonable views never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows." (p. 158) It seems to me that there's a comma missing after "views", but that's how it appears both on the Google search result and on the "snippet view". Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You can read the whole book here; there's a "jump to" box at the top of the viewer that will take you to the right page. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to Babel is great. I am not seeing the snippet view at gbooks. Are you in Britain? For some reason I have found it impossible to get snippet views recently using Safari or IE from the US. Perhaps I need to use Chrome? And yes, a second comma is necessary. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and Jack is in Australia. Google Books is famously fickle about what it shows to who. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian War on Chechnya

How many tanks did Russia lose in Chechnya ? 94.249.118.195 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the first or second Chechen war? Or both together? The figure given in the article on the Battle of Grozny puts tank loses for the city of Grozny as 105 out of a total of 120, and an overall total of 400 (including tanks and APCs) for the First Chechen War. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do people think that death is bad?

Why do people think that death is bad, and their goal is to prolong life intentionally so that they can avoid death? Seriously, when a person tells someone that a death has occurred in the family, the person to whom it is told would say, "Oh, I'm sorry," and act melancholy. Death may be a good thing. If someone has died in a family, then a person may say, "That's great news! That means we have room for more people on this planet!" 164.107.102.144 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's because a loved one is lost to you for ever (or at least for the rest of your life, dependent on your belief system). See our article on mourning. In Christian philosophy, death is at least theoretically a good thing as it leads to salvation, provided that you have behaved yourself. The hero of Pilgrims Progress seems to be quite eager to get on with it. What his relatives thought about it isn't recorded. I have been to a number of funerals that have been quite happy get-togethers and I cordially invite you all to come and have a big party when my time comes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Could that be why Christian monks and nuns and priests remain celibate for the rest of their lives? Death may be too painful, so in order to prevent too much attachment in the secular world, monks and nuns and priests devote themselves to God, and when they die, no one will miss them too much, because they do not have any descendants. 164.107.102.161 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• THis is not an internet chatroom or debate forum. If you have some request for references please make it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many studies regarding attitudes towards death. Medeis is jumping the gun somewhat. I shall return presently with some references. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean I am jumping the gun? It's too early to respond with references? μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling the preceding posters out for not posting references (and I note that Alansplodge did indeed post references) I reckon was just a little too early to get uppity with the OP, whose request is indeed answerable with references. Maybe counting to two needs to be extended to counting to 5 before you start complaining there are no references? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll note I suggested the OP should be asking for references at the reference desk. You are blaming me for something, criticizing the answers, that I didn't do. Instead the OP seems to be making an odd argument more space on the shelf argument and asking us to disagree with him why death shouldn't be a good thing on that basis. He made no reference to or inquiry regarding religion. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This literature review was published by the revered organisation the British Medical Journal. This reference tells us that, because of the unfamiliarity we all have with death in the modern era, death has become seen as being "bad" or "alien" as opposed to being something perfectly natural. Not all branches of Christianity have solemn funerals, either. The Salvation Army sees the death of its officers as their "promotion to glory" and their funerals are celebratory. I went to a Seventh Day Adventist funeral once which was also celebratory, as was the funeral of a local lay preacher in the village I grew up in. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Although one suspects that even a Salvationist might be upset when a spouse or close relative dies. Alansplodge (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

New York county judges

In upstate New York, does your typical county judge sit on that county's supreme court, or some other court, or would it vary from county to county? 2001:18E8:2:1020:6425:F69F:64F6:43DD (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of a county in the US having a supreme court -- just states and the federal government. In any event, see Courts of New York. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the article, there is no NY county court other than the Supreme Court, so that's where county-level judges would serve. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the article is that organizationally the 57 county courts answer to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. But that doesn't mean that a county judge sits on the supreme court. And again, there's no such thing as a "county's supreme court". Duoduoduo (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a Supreme Court in every county of New York. It is not the highest level court like you might be thinking. If the county level court is something other than the Supreme Court, then what is that court? RudolfRed (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you say There is a Supreme Court in every county of New York. First, "Supreme Court" as capitalized is a proper noun, and I can't find anything about something called that at the county level. Second, you say It [a county's Supreme Court] is not the highest level court like you might be thinking. Huh? That's what a Supreme Court is -- the highest level court in some jurisdiction, beyond which there is no appeal. Third, as far as I know, in every county of every state they have something that's just called something like county court, with various spin-offs like family court, traffic court, etc. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that you are going off of your own preconceived notions rather than reading the articles. New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in New York state. The New York Supreme Court is the main trial court in New York, and there is one in each county. RudolfRed (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Very Early Chinese Capitalism

On this one forum which I am a member of, this one other user stated that he remembered from his History class that a king/emperor during feudalistic China started a system of credit between farmers and the nobles that owned that land, paving way to what would have become capitalism. This user stated that even though this system was extremely sucessful, for some reason it was abandoned. I asked him for the name of this system, but he told me that he didn't remember the name of this system. Anyway, does anyone here know what the name of this very early Chinese capitalistic-style economic system is? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Janet Abu-Lughod has apparently made this claim by analysis of Kondratiev waves, according to our article Chinese historiography Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"80% of religious persecution"

According to a lot of people online, the "Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights" says that 80% of the acts of religious intolerance in the world today are directed at Christians. I see lots of variants on this, as well as follow-ups from more clearly religious (often Christian) organisations, which often give a very slightly lower figure (in the 70s).

Without any discussion at all into who is more oppressed than whom, and any discussion of anyone here's personal opinions, can anyone find when and where the International Society for Human Rights said this. I found their website, and I assume the original said this in German, but I can't find where the quote comes from. I would like to read what they themselves have written about how they arrived at this number.

Thanks. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Center for the Study for Human Statistical Analysis has proven that 74% of statistics are made up on the spot by people trying to support some position but lacking any empirical evidence to do so. --Jayron32 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, 87 studies have shown that.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, but that is unhelpful. This is a consistent statistic quoting a real organisation that really researches this stuff. I just can't find where they would put these sort of statistics, which are just exactly the sort of thing that they monitor. Glib automatic responses are unhelpful. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I came up with a blank when trying to find the actual report or news coverage of the report giving this. If you want to narrow the down the search to particular timespan, the statistic quoted and attribution to the ISHR seems to start appearing around the end of 2011: for example in this this piece for the New York Daily News from Archbishop Timothy Dolan and in this homily from Anthony Fisher, the Bishop of Parramata, both of which date to December 2011 and to go back one month, a piece in the National Catholic Reporter from November that year. (You might wish to compare the wording in all three pieces.) But as for any news reports or the actual report giving that statistic, I have drawn a blank.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: that's pretty helpful. I know in the past I have sometimes found that an organisation has released some keys findings in a press release without releasing the full data publicly, or has given some figures in a talk at a conference (which would fit here) and the notes are not generally available. But I also know that these sort of things can be changed in the telling. If you do find the original, in whichever language, I'd be very grateful. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's unhelpful. Your question and responses indicate you believe the ISHR did come up with the figure, rather than you're trying to verify they did and if they did, for more info. However from the information available, the later would be the smarter move here and that seems to ultimately be the message Jayron32 was trying to get across. The fact a figure is frequently quoted and cited to a certain organisation who may actually come up with such figures doesn't prove that they really came up with it. In fact, when the organisations quoting the figure are generally one sided and don't provide any real citation information to help you verify the sourcing and you can't find any real evidence of the organisation cited as the source even actually annoucing the figure, not even in a press release (which you appear to acknowledge these organisations commonly do), it pays to be automatically cautious of the figure. Even more so when the figure itself seems a bit extreme. To put it a differen way, were it not for the fact I demonstrated the linkage to the ISHR was dubious, would you similarly have accepted the 150k figure as coming from the ISHR? If you would have, this seems to further demonstrate the problem with accepting figures coming from partisan sources cited to some external organisation, as really coming from said organisaton without good evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Define "persecution". It's a good bet that church organizations that seek to restrict women's reproductive rights considered their opponents to be "persecuting" them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What part of this is helpful, or a response to my query? 86.164.30.45 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What part of "define religious persecution" do you fail to understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BBs point is very valid indeed, 'persecution' is an undefined term, and could indeed be expanded to include pretty much any criticism if one's definition is wide enough (read: one has one's head stuck far enough up an orifice). 82.21.7.184 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is why news reports of studies on complex issues are generally worthless. The statistics quoted are meaningless without knowing the authors' definitions. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Provided there really is such a statistic. It wouldn't be the first time someone just made up something and attributed it to some organization or person. Sjö (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them directly (by writing them an e-mail for example)? --::Slomox:: >< 08:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Been thinking about how you could get a statistic like this. Would you count it by incidents? By number of people targeted? By severity? On what scale? In whose opinion was it persecution? (Bugs has touched on this already.) Simply thinking about those options demonstrates that it's basically impossible to do. So, even if someone has produced such a statistic, it's worthless. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look around, some sources mention another commonly cited statistic namely that 150k Christians are killed for their faith every year and this is often also cited to the International Society for Human Rights. Some sources, e.g. [2] even cite both figures. As some of these sources themselves have said, this is an average of about 411 a day, 17 per hour or one in less than four minutes (in practice it won't average out like that, the point of looking at it like that is to help get a grasp of the statistics). As some of these and other sources have noted, this seems like quite a high figure, (for example, it's about 1/10 of the number of people dying from HIV/AIDS [3]). Hard to believe? Some sources say so [4] [5] although some sources defend it or similar figures [6], but either way you can see from [7] that the ISHR themselves deny being the source for the 150k figure. My guess is it would be the same for the 80% figure. It could be they've similarly denied being the source for the 80% figure already but I didn't find anyone mentioning it so as Slomox has said, your best bet is to contact them directly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 150K ballpark is pulled apart in this source http://www.thomasschirrmacher.net/blog/a-response-to-the-high-counts-of-christian-martyrs-per-year/ in a way I find pretty convincing. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops that was the citation I intended to give as the first citation here 'Some sources say so [8]' rather than repeating the bensix source twice in my reply, so thanks for noting it as it may have been missed otherwise and as you mentioned it's quite important as in demonstrating the problem with the figure itself. (Rather than simply the sourcing of the figure although as I mentioned in another response above I think that's also an important point given the OP's apparent acceptance of the sourcing just because a lot of mostly partisan sources say it.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP's apparent acceptance? Not sure about that, to me he simply seems to "assume good faith", or phrase his question in a neutral way. That's how I usually ask for a source of a statement I think is made up. Why would I want to know the details when I believe it? I'm not interested in a study claiming that 7% of people are left handed; 40% left handed on the other hand, those details I would like to see. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree, the OP has said

"can anyone find when and where the International Society for Human Rights said this"

and

"I found their website, and I assume the original said this in German, but I can't find where the quote comes from. I would like to read what they themselves have written about how they arrived at this number"

and when people pointed out that a lot of figures have dubious providence they said

"Right, but that is unhelpful. This is a consistent statistic quoting a real organisation that really researches this stuff. I just can't find where they would put these sort of statistics, which are just exactly the sort of thing that they monitor. Glib automatic responses are unhelpful."

After some more follow up they said

"I know in the past I have sometimes found that an organisation has released some keys findings in a press release without releasing the full data publicly, or has given some figures in a talk at a conference (which would fit here) and the notes are not generally available. But I also know that these sort of things can be changed in the telling. If you do find the original, in whichever language, I'd be very grateful."

While I can't speak for the OP's level of English (although it seems fine to me), there is nothing in any of these responses to indicate any actual doubt over the providence of this figure yet as I've indicated, that should be an automatic recognition when dealing with such figures. They appear to want to know more about it the figure, like what the original source actual said, how it was arrived at etc which is a good thing and a key part of criticial thinking in these matters, but their response also suggests they are accepting that the figure really came from the ISHR despite the lack of any evidence. (I never said anything about them accepting the figure, I said they were accepting it came from the ISHR.) At most, they just seem to think there may have been some degree of Chinese whispers. Yet as I've pointed out, there's no reason to automaticly assume that the ISHR ever said anything that gave rise to thic claim.

I can't speak for what you say, but if I'm uncertain of the providence of a figure, I would generally say something which indicates that I'm uncertain, e.g. "....can anyone find if and if so, when and where ...." or ".... said this (presuming they did)". If I fail to indicate such doubt, when someone points out that such figures are nonsense, rather than rejecting pointblank the answer, I will indicate acceptance of the answer while explaining I still want to know more e.g. "I recognise such figures can be dubious. But this is a consistent.... so it's possible they really did come up with it. .... If no one can find any evidence for it, I recognise this could be because it didn't actually come from them."

Assuming good faith may mean we don't assume the partisan sources are lying when they say the figure is from the ISHR. But there's a big gulf between a partisan source lying and the figure actually coming from the organisation they said it came from. And good faith also suggests when someone points out to you that such figures can have dubious providence you acknowledge the validity of this point even if also explaining it doesn't really answer your question, rather than rejecting it outright.

And being neutral would suggest you should not automatically accept a figure as coming from an organisation with no real evidence it came from said organisation. In fact being neutral would suggest you should be extra careful with a figure that sounds a bit dubious since definitively proscribing it to a reputable international organisation could reflect negatively on said organisation through no fault of their own.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There was Rupert Shortt's report for the Civitas think tank about persecution of Christians: "The report, Christianophobia, written by journalist Rupert Shortt and published by Westminster think-tank Civitas, lays bare the scale of the vendetta against Christians across the globe." source: Civitas website (how helpful, writing it's press releases in the third person so others can republish it without even having to change a single word...

There was Angela Merkel in jan 2013 saying "Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world."

Human rights organisations like Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religious Belief called her statement senseless or misguided. They said her opinion was based on occasionally rumored numbers, reports chick.com (what's in a name), the site that spreads the gospel (and anti-gay, -marxist, -evolution, -moslim messages) in cartoon form. However, "Christian international aid society, Open Door" (motto: "serving persecuted Christians worldwide"; by giving them bibles it seems) came to Merkels defense, stating that "80% of the religiously persecuted individuals worldwide were Christian, totaling some 100 million people in all. Open Doors’ list of 50 most religiously repressive regimes fall primarily in two categories: Muslim or “Marxist-legacy.” Their 2013 world watch list is out now, so click it and "find out about the places where Christians suffer the most". See website)... Ssscienccce (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 75% quote may originate from the Vatican, Catholic News Agency mentions it in its report on the pope's 2011 proposal for "an international day against the worldwide persecution of Christians."

And in June 2013, the Vatican said, in a radio broadcast addressed to the UNHRC, that 100000 Christians are killed because of their faith each year... Ssscienccce (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ssssscience, for the record: that was really helpful, and just the sort of thing I was looking for: a source for where stuff started. If I could have found somewhere where the ISHR gave similar press releases, and hadn't seen the appropriate work there, then I would have dismissed it, but since I couldn't see where they would have included something like this, I couldn't rule it out. I tried to phrase my question in a way that would mean the generic and unhelpful answers weren't given, and people actually looked for sources if they wanted to answer, but I guess there's nothing you can do to discourage people from answering with the equivalent of "have you tried turning it off and on again". 86.164.26.129 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Government shutdown - Explain it to me like I'm 5..

I am not in a position at the moment where I can read outside news articles and currently there is no news event about this possible US government shut down. I have read the article that explains what happens during the shut down but I do not understand why this is currently being debated and why people are so upset about it. Can someone explain it to me like I'm 5? (i.e. the less political jargin the better!) 21:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk)

A couple years ago the Congress, then controlled by Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act, and Republicans opposed it. President Obama signed it into law. Democrats like it because it gives more people access to health insurance, and Republicans dislike it because they consider it government overreach. Both sides feel very strongly about it. Right now (tonight at midnight actually) is the deadline for Congress to pass, and Obama to sign, a budget for the whole government, including this health law's implementation as well as everything else, for the fiscal year starting October 1. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are refusing to pass any budget containing funding for implementing the health care act, and the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to pass any budget not containing that funding. Basically this is the last chance for the Republicans to effectively kill the health care act. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Duo, this is perfect and I have a much better understanding of the situation now. Earlier I saw a quote from Obama saying that no matter what happens that the health care website they plan to launch tomorrow will go ahead. Is this Obama basically pulling his weight as the president and making sure something he believes in happens, regardless of the red tape the opposition is trying to put up? Why are regular citizens upset that a government shut down might happen? Because they might not get the health care they need? I understand that people who receive their checks directly from the government would be unhappy as they will stop getting paid or receive late payment, but what about every day Joe's? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Government overreach" is not the real reason Republicans dislike it, but the net effect is the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And the "average citizen" doesn't much care, at least not right now - it's just the ones affected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Duoduoduo's explanation is incorrect. The government is not suggesting a yearly budget. What is at stake is a "continuing resolution" which will continue the prior budget, without debate, along with a raise in the debt ceiling, which would allow the government to continue borrowing about 30% of its budgetary outlays. (The US federal government goes into about 3 billion dollars of debt daily.) The Republicans have suggested they will allow this constitutionally dubious action if implementation of Obamacare is delayed by one year. The Democratically-controlled Senate has vowed to pass no such bill, and Obama has vowed to veto any such bill. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The Congress has the power to borrow money. That's not "constitutionally dubious", it's in the Constitution. The Republicans' intention is to defer Obamacare far enough away to where they can get a monolithic government (they hope) and not only defeat Obamacare but to screw the general public even further than they already have. Ironically, Obamacare is already funded and will go ahead even as the Tea Party bullies force much of the rest of the government to shut down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since the Republicans can't defeat Obamacare through any honest democratic means, they are holding the entire government hostage. That's par for the course, for the Republicans, especially since the Tea Party Neo-Nazis have been slithering their way in and displacing the more reasonable Republicans. I recall when this debt-ceiling issue came up under their darling, Ronald Reagan. Reagan supported raising the debt ceiling, for a simple reason: As he said, "We have to pay our bills." That is, he placed America's reputation above politics. The Congress, especially the Tea Partiers, care nothing about any of that. They also tend to be racist, sexist bigots. They hate America, and hate Americans, and would rather see the government and America's reputation destroyed, than to extend a hand to those in this country who are the least well off. They're also short-sighted morons, although that's stating the obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• As Carney explained on CNN, you can more easily see that the Republicans are wrong here by imagining a hypothetical situation were Obama would hold the government hostage when Congress would want to raise the debt ceiling without any strings attached. Suppose then that that Obama would say to Congress that he won't accept any bill that raises the debt ceiling unless Congress passes comprehensive gun law reforms. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Beautiful analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure no dissenting or republican opinion here would be welcome, but [ some sources] are saying that since Congress constitutionally controls the purse strings, and since they always fund exactly what they are willing to fund for the year as is their normal right, the administration is the one extorting more from them by threatening to veto the entire budget, causing a shutdown, and are thus the one "holding government hostage". Otherwise people who are uninsured now could buy insurance today if they wanted it for $35, but after Obamacare is implemented they would be forced to buy it whether they want it or not and it will cost them several times more, so there's your wonderful progress for the uninsured. 71.246.149.160 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Who provides worthwhile health insurance for 35 dollars a month? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a dissenting opinion. I don't know if it's a great example of a 'Republican one'. The linked you provided is to PrisonPlanet. As stated in the article, it actually comes (I presume without copyyvio) from The New American which is published by the John Birch Society. Even with the rise of the Tea Party movement and related movements which may at times express similar sentiments, those two are still fringe even among Republicans. This doesn't mean most Republicans agree with the views expressed here or even that they disagree with anything within in the source, but I think we should be careful when providing such sources as Republican viewpoints lest they are interpreted to be somewhat representative of the 'typical' (in so much as that that has meaning) Republican view by people who don't appreciate who they are coming from. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, the John Birchers. Those are the guys who thought Senator Joe McCarthy was too liberal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a single reference to this event. Just a lot of opinion trading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Go to CNN.com and read all about it: Facts, opinions, and everything in between. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Therein you will find the sage advice of Newt Gingrich, exhorting the GOP to stand their ground on their attempts to subvert the will of the people. This is especially good advice, coming from the architect of the last such disaster, which caused a great deal of damage politically... including to Gingrich. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't respondents here supposed to be providing links to relevant sources, not just telling people to go find them themselves? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link to CNN.com, which has several headline-story reports which will get you up to speed.[9] Here's the link to Gingrich's opinion.[10] For a more reasoned approach (which doesn't take much), here is Fareed Zakaria's take. [11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What's constitutionally questionable is passing continuing resolutions, rather than budgets, as the constitution makes provision for the one, not the other. In any case, there is no budget on the table as Duoduoduo implied. There's nothing constitutionally wrong with Obama threatening to veto a budget, as he could veto any bill. There would also be nothing procedurally unconstitutional with Obama threatening to veto a budget that didn't have a gun control clause--except that such a clause might be against the second amendment, while defunding Obamacare is certainly not unconstitutional. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, the OP asked for an explanation of motives understandable by a 5-year old. I explained the motives. As for the statement of what's happening as a result of those motives, I saw no need to finely parse the situation. In common parlance, authorization to spend certain amounts of money on certain items is frequently called a "budget". Please forgive me for using a word with both technical and non-technical meanings in the non-technical way in answering an OP who wanted a non-technical answer. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being a dishonest, slithering, hostage-holding, sexist, racist, neonazi bigot, Lol. It's simply that the difference between a continuing resolution and a budget is a significant, and not too difficult to explain one. (A five year-old wouldn't understand either in any case--children cannot get any parts of politics until they are around 10 at the earliest.) μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For the second time today, the House passed a doomed-to-fail version of a bill. They are not interested in doing what's right for the country, or in being statesmanlike. They are not interested in getting legislation passed. All they care about is bragging to their constituents about how they brought the government down, to score points that they hope will get them re-elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

5 year old eh? Well it's like in a ball game when one of the teams doesn't win and decides to just kick the ball out of the field, over the fence, across the street and into a river. So now no one can play. Sodacan (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the House has been doing for the last several years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In a more serious note. Lest we forget that the forthcoming Congressional election will bring in a lame duck Congress, who will sit over Obama's last two years as a lame duck incumbent. The gloves are off (if they haven't already been off for some time). In fact Americans will probably get more, not less of these shenanigans until 2016. Shutting down the federal government over the ACA is just a great way to fight an election over one issue, its really easy to win that way. That is what the issue is really about in my opinion. Sodacan (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. It's not about serving the country, it's about kissing up to what they perceive their individual constituencies to be, and about getting re-elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do politicians do that? :-0 HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been known to happen. They don't usually shut down the government as part of that strategy, though. Unless they're Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The Republicans undoubtedly have been taking a hard line trying to frustrate Obamacare at all costs. However, this time the Democrats are also taking a hard line, opposing provisions such as the repeal of an unarguably stupid medical device tax on the basis that "giving into bullies now will lead to more concessions later". There's a lot of political strategizing to this ... there are a lot of times when being really clever makes people really stupid, and this is one of them. Wnt (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the Boehner House took over in January of 2011, they've passed somewhere near 50 attempts to stop Obamacare, knowing full well that it would fail in the Senate, and conducting such votes merely as grandstanding for their re-election campaigns. This series is merely the latest such attempt. They tied it to the other resolution in hopes of extorting the Senate and the President. It didn't work. Now, if they had passed only a repeal of that tax, they would have something to discuss. At present, they don't. The bad faith shown by the House is evident in the other stuff they tacked on, such as one of the war-on-women items. They knew there was no chance of it passing, so they figured, Why not do some further grandstanding just for the fun of it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be explained to a five year old as the OP asked.

Five year old to Mom: "I want another candy."

Mom: "Nope, you already got one and we're going to eat dinner soon."

Five year old: "I want a candy!"

Mom: "No, and stop shouting, I'm talking on the phone!"

Five year old: "CANDY, CANDY, CANDY!"

So, when the mother says that she has problems talking on the phone due to the shouting, the five year old pumps up the volume even more in order to frustrate her phone conversation to force here to give a candy. That's typical toddler behavior and that's all there is to the spending bill debate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the way terrorists work too, except their tantrums are a bit more deadly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If the five year old is the ones who want to make impositions on the public ignoring the 2010 election, you made a great analogy... Unfortunately too many of the five year olds think they're the mother over the voters. 71.246.149.160 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The voting public supports plenty of things that the House opposes, such as Obamacare and gun control. The House doesn't care what the general public thinks, unless it happens to suit them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then. This got heavy and detailed and full of poster opinion very quickly! Opinion is fine but I would prefer a neutral approach as I don't generally follow politics so most of that is over my head. I feel like I understand the situation a little better now, although still have a question or two. I see that there is a wiki article now that I plan to read shortly (so forgive me if these questions are answered over there).

1. Is this shut down indefinite? Or does everything go back to normal by a certain date? 2. What is the point of this shut down if the ACA went into affect today anyway? It's my understanding that the opposition is doing this because they don't like the idea of healthcare costs and insurance being regulated (I'm assuming because they have their fingers in those pies like with oil?). But if the ACA website launched today regardless, what is the point? They can't stop anything with this shut down so what good does it do? I guess I am a little baffled on what they hope to achieve. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"I'm assuming because they have their fingers in those pies like with oil?" What exactly is this supposed to mean? It doesn't make a bit of sense. Big Pharma wrote Obamacare entirely themselves, they are all for it because it will benefit them mainly... 71.246.149.160 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey look, I think the Onion just featured us all! ;-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

By that I mean I assume they have money in health care so do not want the government to regulate the cost of medical care so they can continue charging outrageous amounts like $500 for aspirin etc. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So 63.95.64.254, you are against the government? Remove government programs like medicare and prices will come down to what consumers (us) demand. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I am against the government at all, but cannot open that link to see what you are referencing. I think the ACA is a great idea. Perhaps I am misunderstanding here but from what I understand, the Republicans have money in healthcare so they do not want to see their own personal profit diminish. That is what I mean by them not wanting health care to have regulated costs as they will be forced to charge a reasonable amount for their services rather than make up the prices as they see fit. If I am wrong about that, please feel free to put me on the right track. As I advised, I am not particularly politically minded so would appreciate having the situation explained in a neutral way. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The link is on the edit page, it goes into detail on how massive centralized government subsidies of patients have had the majority of patients simply not fight expensive medical bills since they won't be the ones paying it after all. If you 63.95.64.254 write a blank check and tell people they can buy a car with it or buy my prescriptions with it then why cut back? Why hassle the doctor or clinic or hospital about any unreasonable cost?

I have lived most of my life without insurance for the small stuff, and I've negotiated lesser medical payments for clinic stops. There are also privately funded charity care and aide for the poor, which before medicare and medicaid were the norm in almost every county, many major cities actually had "charity hospitals" run by church or community groups. Even private charities were very cost conscious, a centralized government thousands of miles away eh not so much.

Also I'd like to see anything that supports the fairy tale that Republicans are the ones that run the healthcare industry. Last I checked there were several millionaire Democratic Senators a few of those even included Obama, Clinton and John Kerry, all of whom by the way are taking exemptions from the Obamacare exchanges. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a report today that around 125 Republicans were willing to vote in favor of the Senate bill, or at least to drop the attempted end-around on Obamacare. Boehner won't allow such a vote, because the tea partiers would demand his head (that's why the gun control measure went nowhere, despite large public support for it). Congress is not being controlled by "the people", it's being held hostage by a minority in the House, the tea party. Had the Republicans been smart enough to see this coming, some years ago, they could have forbidden those guys from running in their primaries and stealing elections from the reasonable ones. They would have been restricted to a third party and would have withered away. Too late now. They're a cancer growing on the GOP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, I've been very entertained reading this thread, yes let us start "restrict"ing elections/parties, let us start calling those who might disagree with our political views a "cancer" (really, a cancer?). Cuba is only 90 miles offshore, universal healthcare and no opposition party or voices. Let us hope that all views can at the very least be respected . . . even those that one may disagree with. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A small minority has imposed their will on the House and brought the government to a halt. If that's not a cancer on the political process, then maybe you can think of a better term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So the Democratic Party is a 12x "cancer"? Uh ok. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds good to people who don't know anything about it whatsoever to claim the Republicans have been running healthcare and therefore have a "finger in the pie". That's got to be the audience Bugs is counting on. 71.246.149.160 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure 71.246.149.160, since the Democratic Party shut down the federal government at least 12 times (sometimes for weeks) between 1977 and 1989 it seems the "cancer" thing is at least applying to both parties, perhaps some editors on here are against both parties and thus against the . . . ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I Need Help Finding Whole Deutsche Bank Report for its Population Projections

It states here -- http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/the-end-of-global-population-growth-may-be-almost-here-and-a-lot-sooner-than-the-un-thinks/ -- that Deutsche Bank recently made/created a report which made population projections all the way up to 2100. Is there any place where I can personally view this whole report of theirs itself for free? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.esocialsciences.org/Articles/ShowArticle.aspx?acat=Institutional+Papers&aid=4231 Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)